House of Representatives
19 April 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 891

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Royal Commission on Petroleum

The petition of certain members of the Service Station Association of New South Wales Limited, and certain members of the motoring public of N.S.W. respectfully showeth:

That the Federal Government give every consideration to implementing the findings of the Royal Commission on Petroleum.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take action to ensure that the needs of the motoring public and the retail petroleum industry are given every consideration.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Sinclair, Mr Connolly, Mr Dobie, Mr Ellicott, Mr Graham, Mr Howard, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Sullivan.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

That the delays between announcements of each quarterly movement in the Consumer Price Index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress to pensioners.

That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the Index could adversely affect the value of future increases in age and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

  1. Require each quarterly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index to be applied to age and invalid and similar pensions as from the pension pay day nearest following the date of announcement of the CPI movement.
  2. Give an open assurance to all aged and invalid pensioners that any revision of the items comprising the consumer price index will in no way result in reductions in the value of any future entitlements to pensioners.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman, Mr Neil, Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Sullivan.

Petitions received.

National Highways and Public Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government should totally finance national highways and half the cost of constructing and maintaining all other public roads.

That since current road funding arrangements have seen a deterioration in road assets, this backlog in construction and maintenance needs to be reduced by the Commonwealth Government undertaking to make a larger financial contribution.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Bourchier and Mr Holten.

Petitions received.

Australian Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide SO per cent of all funding for Australia ‘s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903 million of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann and Mr Newman.

Petitions received.

Abortion

Petition to the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth that the undersigned are deeply concerned: that abortion is the destruction of innocent human life, that on 10 May 1973 the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected the Medical Practices Clarification Bill, which sought to legalize abortion on demand in the Territories controlled by the Federal Government, that the Legislative Assembly in Canberra should consult Parliament again before discussing and debating the opening and operations of Population Services International and Preterm Foundation in Canberra, that the situation regarding abortions in the Australian Capital Territory is the same as that in New South Wales where the statute prohibits abortion but allows a defence, that the situation in the Australian Capital Territory has a great impact on situations in the states.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will act immediately to prevent the establishment and/or operation of Population Services International and Preterm Foundation, and other private clinics, in the Australian Capital Territory, that taxpayers’ money may not be used, through Medibank, to finance abortions.

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

Petition received.

Primary School at Katherine South

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

  1. That the people of Katherine desire two Primary Schools each of 400 students not one school of 800 pupils at Clyde Fenton.
  2. We, the undersigned, demand that a permanent school be established at Katherine South, where children are now housed in sub-standard temporary buildings.
  3. The parents of children at Katherine South allowed their children to be transferred from the then Area School, first to a shed at the Showgrounds and then to the aforementioned temporary buildings, on the understanding that a new school would be built at Katherine South by 1 980.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the proposed permanent Primary School for Katherine South be included in the 1 976-77 Capital Works program. by Mr Calder.

Petition received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth that we humbly pray:

That in relation to early childhood, primary, secondary and post-secondary education:

  1. That the members of this House be mindful of the over-riding importance attached to quality education by the Australian public, and ensure that this public concern be reflected in our government’s policies and funding priorities,
  2. That the Government immediately demonstrate its awareness of public feeling on this issue by allowing the Australian Schools Commission and the PostSecondary Education Commission to base their recommendations on the needs of our schools, free from imposed guidelines,
  3. That the needs as reported by the Commission, and the expressed concern of the electorate, be the criteria by which government funds are allocated to education in the forthcoming federal budget.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMr Chapman.

Petition received.

Air Services to King 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. No decision has been made by the Commonwealth Government on the recommended assistance for air travel from King Island made by Mr Nimmo in his report.
  2. Air services are the only means of transport to and from the island.
  3. People on the island are frequently required to leave the island for essential purposes.

We therefore call upon the Government to implement the recommendations of assistance for air passengers, made in Mr Nimmo ‘s report.

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

Petition received.

Public Libraries

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

That the public library services of New South Wales are inadequate both in quality and quantity and that the burden of provision is placed too heavily upon local government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries as a matter of urgency.

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

Petition received.

Local Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore ask that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads for the funding of rural local roads and urban local roads in New South Wales for the triennium 1977-1980. by Mr Hunt.

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting 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. Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the government of the day whatever political party.
  2. Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  3. Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into ABC programs.
  4. Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence.
  5. Ensure that any general enquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the enquiry,

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

Petition received.

Australian Legal Aid Office

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 grave concern is expressed about the Government’s intention to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office which is providing efficient, readily available legal aid to all communities in Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will undertake a full national enquiry as proposed in 1975 by the present Attorney-General, as a matter of urgency.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled.

Your petitioners believe that all people have the right to education, irrespective of class, age, sex, sexuality and ethnic background, and that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to protect that right.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. That there should be substantial increases in education expenditure to make education accessible and free to all people who want it.
  2. That in view of the substandard living conditions forced on many tertiary students as a consequence of a totally inadequate student assistance scheme, there is an urgent need for an immediate increase in the present level of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme to 120 per cent of the adjusted Henderson poverty line; and, further, that the TEAS be indexed quarterly to movements in the Consumer Price Index.
  3. That all students should receive a living wage, starting at the minimum wage.
  4. That the needs-based grants scheme be in no way jeopardised by any other program of student assistance, including supplementary or comprehensive loans schemes.

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

Petition received.

page 893

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, left Australia on 1 3 April to lead the Australian delegation to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which has been convened in Geneva to negotiate a new international sugar agreement. Mr Anthony also will be having discussions in Washington with the new Administration. He is expected to return on 8 May. During his absence the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, will act as Minister for National Resources and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Cotton, will act as Minister for Overseas Trade. The Acting Minister for Overseas Trade will be represented in this chamber by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock, also left Australia on 13 April for discussions in the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia. He is expect to return on 26 April. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I also inform the House that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Viner, left Australia yesterday to attend the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in the Philippines. He is expected to return on 24 April. During his absence the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, will act as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Acting Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will be represented in this chamber by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development.

page 893

TASMANIAN TRANSPORT INDUSTRY STRIKE

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

  1. That this House takes note of the fact that once again Tasmania has been held to ransom and isolated from the rest of Australia as a direct result of strike action within the transport industry.
  2. That this House further notes that the agreement made with the ACTU that Tasmania would be exempt from such strike action has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance.
  3. That this House reaffirms that Tasmania is part of the Commonwealth of Australia and that the people of Tasmania are becoming increasingly incensed by the irresponsible actions of mainland trade union leaders whereby communication links between Tasmania and the mainland States are disrupted and violated with monotonous regularity, causing extreme hardship to thousands of travellers and serious damage to one of Tasmania’s major income earners, namely the tourist industry.
  4. That this House resolves that appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that persons who engage in irresponsible strike action which has the effect of isolating Tasmania and endangering even the economic viability of the State of Tasmania shall be called upon to answer for their actions.

page 894

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has made his point, but it is not a point of order. The third paragraph of standing order 107 provides that when 2 matters of public importance are submitted the Speaker must form an opinion and the criteria for the forming of an opinion are urgency and importance. It is not necessary for me to explain to the House how I have reached my opinion in this case, but I will state briefly that the matter which I have selected refers to a matter which is very current, to wit, a wages and prices freeze. The other matter spoke in generalities of the economy. Therefore I have chosen the matter which I regard as the more urgent. There is no point of order.

page 894

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 894

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

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

– I ask the Prime Minister whether, following the decision of last week’s Premiers Conference, he will make a statement which the House can debate on the actions which the Government will be taking and the guidelines which it will be urging on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Industries Assistance Commission, financial institutions and marketing bodies to obviate increases in prices, taxes and charges over the coming months?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I will consider whether a statement detailing the actions taken by the Government so far ought to be made and whether it would add usefully to information available to honourable members. Statements indicating the actions that the Government has taken have already been made. In all the areas under the Government’s direct control we have taken the attitude that there ought to be no exemptions. For example, actions have already been taken in relation to rents which I think were due to increase two or three days ago. That increase has obviously been deferred. The Government also takes the view in broad terms that interest rates, dividends and all such matters ought to be static over the period. We welcome very much the attitude that has been expressed by a very large number of employer organisations. A number of wholesalers have indicated that from 9 a.m. on the day following the announcement they instructed that there would be no alteration in the prices charged for their products or in the prices paid to their suppliers. I think that is very much in accordance with the spirit of what the 7 heads of government had in mind when they issued the call following the Premiers Conference.

The Commonwealth’s view is that there ought to be no exemptions. The Prices Justification Tribunal has a role to play, and references have been made to it. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has a role to play but, as the honourable gentleman knows, in devising the appropriate submission to the Commission for this morning’s hearing, at least 2 States indicated that they thought that the Commission’s involvement in any formal sense would be premature. In the interests of keeping agreement amongst the Premiers and the Commonwealth in those particular matters, we responded to that in what we said to the Arbitration Commission this morning. I will examine whether all of these things ought to be put together, even if only in a detailed document which could be tabled to the advantage of honourable members.

page 895

QUESTION

NEWCASTLE FLOATING DOCK

Mr BRADFIELD:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Transport, is in regard to recent reports on the letting to Japan of a tender for a dry dock for Newcastle. Was the Minister involved in negotiations for the building of the dry dock by the New South Wales Government? Can the Minister inform the House who took the decision to have the dry dock built in Japan?

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

– I can inform the House that no one from the Commonwealth Government was involved in the negotiations for the floating dock to be built for the State Dockyard. The House will be interested to know that the cost of the proposed dock is about $8.6m. It will also be interested to note that the Deputy Premier of New South Wales stated that the cost was slightly less than half the cost quoted in one of the tenders from Australia and that the other tender which was put in by an Australian builder was dearer than that again. The interesting feature about the New South Wales proposal is that crocodile tears were shed by the Australian Labor Party over the building of Australian National Line ships in Japan. For example, I recall the honourable member for Port Adelaide moving in this House to condemn this Government for taking what we said was a proper, normal commercial decision in the light of the extravagant costs and of the failure of the State Dockyard workers to sign a reasonable social contract about strikes if the ANL ships were to be built here. Other Labor members as well joined in shedding crocodile tears. The fact is that it was complete humbug. The actions of the New South Wales Government now in ordering a floating dock overseas show that it cared not one whit for the workers at Newcastle in the Government’s own dockyard. The whole thing was an act of complete political hypocrisy right from the start.

page 895

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: GOVERNMENT CHARGES

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer him to the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government would not increase its own charges during the period of the pause. I also draw his attention to the earlier reply which the Prime Minister gave today to the

Leader of the Opposition. Does this mean that Government interest rates will be frozen? If so, has the Government forgone a major arm of monetary policy at a crucial time in the financial year? If not, is it intended to raise coupon rates for the May loan and will this reduce even further the narrow scope of the price freeze?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I have responded previously to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to forward interest rates by indicating to the honourable gentleman that he should know as well as any honourable member in the House that this is not an appropriate subject to which any Treasurer should respond during question time.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw the attention of the Treasurer to the statement in which the Prime Minister said that interest rates would not rise. The Prime Minister has already said that. The Treasurer is making an accusation against me. He should do the same to the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable gentleman is being more than usually asinine.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr LYNCH:

-Yes, Mr Speaker, I do withdraw. The Government has made it very clear that the prices and incomes pause is, of course, not a substitute for the Government’s economic policy. We look forward to that pause as a significant supplement to the other arms of policy. The pause is strongly supported by virtually every section of the Australian community, including employers and the rank and file of the Australian trade union movement. Every effort will be made to hold interest rates at present levels. But, of course, this is without commitment. The honourable gentleman knows the reasons why. Every effort will be made to hold official interest rates during the period. On the basis of information provided by those who have responsibility in the area, I can say that interest rates generally in the private sector are almost certain to be held at present levels.

page 895

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: DISCUSSIONS WITH EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE ORGANISATIONS

Mr McLEAN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the reported widespread opposition to the incomes and prices pause by some sections of the trade union movement, will the Prime Minister inform the House what steps the Government is taking or proposes to take to discuss further the freeze with employer and employee organisations throughout Australia?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Premiers and the Commonwealth have been involved in wide ranging discussions with a wide variety of groups, organisations and individuals throughout the Australian community. It is my understanding that all Premiers have made direct approaches to union organisations within their own States. My colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has been in touch with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions about these matters. Last week, in response to a request from employer organisations, with other Ministers I met a very large body of representatives of employer organisations, all of whom committed themselves to support the wage and price halt even though they indicated that there were difficulties. They believed, in the national interest, that those difficulties should be accepted and that they should be ridden with. We have now asked also, as a request from us, peak employee organisations to come to Canberra tomorrow. I am advised that the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations has responded already. It is willing, ready and able to come. In fact, it suggested conversations with the Government. I hope that other peak employee organisations will join CAGEO in its approach tomorrow. I hope that at those discussions we will see some advance in the total proposition because, as my colleague the Treasurer has indicated, there is a widespread view throughout the whole Australian community- with very limited exceptions indeed- that the total community ought to accept the call from the 6 Premiers and the Commonwealth.

page 896

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: ROLE OF PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Following the announcement of a proposed wage-price freeze and statements by the Prime Minister and some of his Ministers that the Prices Justification Tribunal would be used as a mechanism to supervise price rises, I ask whether it is the Government’s intention to amend further the Prices Justification Act to cater for this new policy. If so, when? What additional staff will be made available to the Tribunal to monitor price rises?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the honourable gentleman in part at least misunderstands the proposition when he says that the Prices Justification Tribunal would be asked to supervise price rises, implying that there were to be price increases during the period of the halt. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has made a reference to the Prices Justification Tribunal so that there will be a body to monitor what is happening in the prices field, to respond to complaints if there are complaints and to bring them to public notice. In the past it has become plain that decisions, attitudes and statements of the Prices Justification Tribunal carry very great weight. If the wage-price halt is carried a stage further and union officials who hitherto have not said a great deal about this matter join in the general call for restraint in these matters, then the Government has suggested that there should be a small group of employees, employers and the Prices Justification Tribunal to monitor these matters so that both employees and employers can be directly involved.

We have also said that that group would be able to make recommendations to the Government if it were felt to be necessary concerning modifications to the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Government has made no decision about any modification being necessary but has pointed to its own open minded attitude to the total proposition and has indicated that it will stretch every nerve of its own resources to make sure that it does everything it can to make this proposition a success. I have also indicated that it is too early to establish that group at this point because we are waiting and I believe the whole Australian community is waiting for the official voice of the union movement to give some indication of support for a general proposition which the total community supports to a very large extent, which union members support to a very large extent and which their wives certainly support to a very large extent. It remains only for union members and their wives to be given the opportunity of influencing the actual decision.

page 896

QUESTION

EXPORT OF URANIUM TO JAPAN

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for National Resources. On 24 March 1977, in response to a question I asked concerning the supply by Peko-EZ and Queensland Mines Ltd of uranium to Japan, the Minister advised the House that he hoped that negotiations proceeding with the Australian companies for access to the Government’s uranium stockpile would be finalised very soon. Can the Acting Minister advise what position has been reached in these negotiations?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– The Commonwealth Government and Peko-EZ have completed negotiations on arrangements for the Government’s stockpile to be made available to Peko-EZ to meet early deliveries under its existing approved uranium export contracts and an agreement has been initialled. I understand that Peko-EZ wants to clear the agreement with its Japanese customers before the agreement is formally executed. I am hopeful that discussions with Queensland Mines can be concluded at an early date.

page 897

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: PERISHABLES

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I understand that perishables will be exempt from the Government’s freeze, even though perishables generally would benefit most by it. When the prices of fruit and vegetables increase, will exemption from the price freeze be granted to companies canning fruit and vegetables, wholesalers distributing them and retailers selling them? Will the freeze then apply only to the wages of the consumers?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have already expressed the broad view of the Government that there ought to be no exceptions.

page 897

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: DOCTORS’ FEES

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Has the Minister consulted with representatives of the medical profession on the proposed wages-prices freeze? If so, can he say what the attitude of the profession will be?

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

– I am pleased to inform the House that the Australian Medical Association has cooperated with the heads of government in their call for a wages and prices freeze. The Australian Medical Association has effectively adopted an 8-month freeze on doctors’ fees. The Association has agreed to participate in a government initiated inquiry into fees for the year commencing 1 January 1978 and that fee inquiry will be conducted under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Ludeke. The Australian Medical Association also has asked its fees bureau to review the Association’s own list of medical services and fees but there is no intention at this stage to change the list before 1 January 1978. Indeed, a great many doctors are presently petitioning their membership for a freeze for at least the next 12 months, probably commencing on 1 January 1978. So the Australian Medical Association and certainly a large percentage of the medical profession have responded admirably to the call.

Mr Young:

– What is their average income?

Mr HUNT:

– Their average income was considerably increased when the honourable member’s Party initiated Medibank and their fees went up by about 58 per cent while Labor was in government. Last year the Australian Medical Association agreed quite voluntarily to set a 7Vi per cent average increase limit on their fees for this financial year.

page 897

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: DOCTORS’ FEES

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

-My question is also directed to the Minister for Health. Why is it that the inquiry by Mr Justice Ludeke into doctors’ incomes is to be held in private? Why should this inquiry not be held in public as Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearings are always held in public so that every Australian, not just doctors, will be aware of the Government’s policies and submissions with respect to the most highly remunerated section of the Australian community?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-I should have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have known the answer to the question before he asked it because in his term as Prime Minister 2 fee inquiries were held in private. As the Leader of the Opposition would understand, the Australian Medical Association or the medical profession is not under any statutory obligation or under any constitutional obligation to have the Commonwealth interfere with its fee adjustments, but by agreement with several governments, including the government led by the Leader of the Opposition, the Australian Medical Association agreed to participate in inquiries. It has done so on this occasion. This inquiry will be held in private but the report will be made public.

page 897

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORTS TO JAPAN

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Has the Government any advice on when Japan will announce its next 6-monthly quota for imports of beef? Can the Minister indicate what that quota is likely to be?

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

-I thank the honourable gentleman for the question because one of those members of the Japanese Diet who might well influence the determination of that quota is with us in the House today and I extend a welcome to Mr Yamanaka. The significance of the quota to the Australian beef industry is well known to all members of this House. Japan is significant to our industry as an importer of chilled beef and is the principal export market for better classes of meat from Australia, and in respect of other classes of meat the Japanese market is of very real importance to the Australian industry. There is a capacity for us to produce the classes and quality of meat that the Japanese customer requires. We understand the difficulties of Japanese beef producers but believe that the high quality imports from Australia in no way prejudice the returns and circumstances of Japanese cattlemen. We therefore hope that when Mr Yamanaka returns to his homeland he will take with him a recommendation for something at least better than the quota we received in the last 6 months period. I am sure that would be welcomed not only by Australian cattlemen but by Japanese consumers.

page 898

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: IMPORTED BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with the building industry. If the cost of imported building materials rises in the next 3 months will the Government honour the rise and fall clauses in its contracts with construction companies?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– In this area, when there are firm contracts a situation exists in which the Commonwealth would like to be able to negotiate. I do not think that much can be done about matters that have occurred in the past as a result of past events. But if the total community, including the union movement, accepts the wage-price halt I believe that everyone has an obligation to play his part. Therefore the Commonwealth would want to be in a position of seeking to negotiate with contractors in relation to the matter that has been raised. So far as the past is concerned, one can at least in part draw an analogy with increments in awards where there is a fixed award and the award is adjusted from time to time as a result of certain events. Although there has been no change in terms and conditions, the adjustment is automatic. I do not think that the Commonwealth or anyone else should seek a change in an actual award which has been made, but again these are matters of detail. The Commonwealth and the Premiers have been saying for quite some time that it is important that there be a broad commitment on the part of the total Australian community in relation to these matters. If there is that broad commitment, that broad resolution, it can carry the community over particular areas of difficulty, and that is the only way in which the wage-price halt will have a real chance of success.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide to cease interjecting. He has been doing so constantly today.

Mr Young:

– The Prime Minister has been talking nonsense.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will withdraw that statement.

Mr Young:

– I withdraw.

page 898

QUESTION

OIL INDUSTRY STRIKE

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of the serious disruption to communication between Tasmania and the mainland caused by the strike by aircraft refuellers? Will the Minister inform the House of the full effect of the strike by aircraft refuellers and tanker drivers employed by oil companies?

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

-Strike action by oil industry drivers and aircraft refuellers in support of a log of claims served on the employers in February this year has resulted in a very serious depletion of stocks, particularly in Victoria, to the extent that supplies have already run out in some areas of Melbourne and further areas of Victoria are likely to be without petrol unless the dispute is resolved within the next few days. Thousands of air travellers have been stranded in Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria, although I understand that services to Tasmania are likely to be resumed today following a decision by the union members there to return to work. Conferences have been held in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission between the oil companies and the union concerned over the log of claims which, in addition to improvement in conditions of employment, is seeking a catch-up for alleged loss of earnings as a result of recent national wage case decisions -an approach which the House will remember the Commission has already rejected.

I understand that meetings of refuellers and tanker drivers are to take place in the near future. Until now those employees have refused to accept the offers which have been put to them by the companies. All reasonable people will join with the Government in condemning this highly irresponsible industrial action by a few key employees in this industry which has brought great hardship and inconvenience to the community at a time when it can have the effect only of delaying economic recovery and when the great need is for the support of everyone in this community to restore the economic health of the country. The Government urges the employees concerned to heed the recommendations of the Commission and cease forthwith this irresponsible industrial action.

page 899

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the fact that a 1974 survey of the unemployment benefit in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries revealed that Australia had by far the lowest level of income support for the unemployed at only 23.4 per cent of the average income, compared with the United States benefit at 52.2 per cent and the German benefit at 64 per cent? Is he aware of any reason why those figures are not comparable and why they do not reveal a deplorable neglect of the unemployed in Australia? Will he assure the House that the Government will put to the Myers Committee a submission that there be no decrease in the unemployment benefit but that there be an increase to make the Australian benefit comparable with that of other countries?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman will know that under the law as it stands the Australian unemployment benefit is in fact indexed. I am not aware of the comparative figures to which the honourable member has referred. I shall obtain the figures, get a report on them and see what information I can give the honourable gentleman.

page 899

QUESTION

CEMENT WORKERS STRIKE

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that many of my constituents who are carters and drivers are now without any work whatsoever because of an exceptionally damaging strike by cement workers? Will he be kind enough to tell the House what is the position concerning the cement strike which is holding to ransom the building industry throughout my area?

Mr STREET:
LP

– Much of what I said a moment ago in relation to the strike by the refuellers and tanker drivers applies to the question asked by the honourable member. It is my understanding that as a result of a refusal to work under the terms and conditions of the award negotiated with the 3 principal suppliers of concrete, approximately 60 union members are holding up the delivery of concrete to building projects throughout the Melbourne metropolitan area. As a result of that some hundreds of builders labourers have been stood down. If the strike is continued by those few irresponsible people it inevitably will result in thousands of workers being stood down. It is another good example of the selfish, irresponsible action of a few key people, as the honourable member has said, holding an industry to ransom.

page 899

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: IMPORTED CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister to recall his answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Prospect a few minutes ago in which he pointed out that there would be no exceptions from the prices freeze. My question is related to imported items, such as capital equipment. In the case of an item being ordered before the last devaluation but being delivered in the course of the freeze and thus having to be paid for at a higher rate of Australian dollars than applied at the time the order was made, the order having been made in a foreign currency, does that mean that businesses so affected will not be able to pass on the increased costs they have to bear? If so, does it mean that at the end of the freeze period such businesses will be able to increase their costs in order not only to cover those increased costs but also to recoup retrospectively income lost because of the freeze?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable member tries to draw an analogy. He refers to equipment ordered before devaluation but which would be coming into the country after the announcement made by the Premiers and myself and in relation to which importers would therefore want to put up the price. I should have thought that for a very large part importers would already have put up their prices following devaluation and at least would have notified the prices that would be prevailing on particular pieces of equipment ordered. The honourable gentleman was trying to do in his question what a number of other Opposition members have been seeking to do this afternoon. At least the Leader of the Opposition gave support to the general thrust and to the general call of the Premiers and the Commonwealth Government. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not do so. He has sought deliberately to cause confusion and to undermine the call by 7 governments.

The questions asked about a number of matters in the House today by a number of Opposition members, including the honourable member for Oxley, have been directed towards undermining the general thrust for a wage-price halt. I do not think honourable gentlemen will do themselves any credit by maintaining that approach. Quite obviously, if we get into a freeze situation with the unions as well as the employers accepting the general thrust of what is proposed -

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer this question I am afraid that wage earners in the community will think that the whole thing is a set-up.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, I say with the greatest respect that I sometimes wonder for how long honourable members on the Opposition side will be allowed to take points of order during question time merely to make a comment. I cannot remember one genuine point of order being raised during question time for weeks. Points of order are taken merely to interrupt and to indulge in debate on these matters. If honourable members prefer to take that course, it would be very easy to shorten the length of question time. Their actions extend it unnecessarily.

Mr Martin:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order about the remarks of the Prime Minister in regard to your administration of this House and the Chair. His remarks are a reflection upon you, Mr Speaker, and they are against the Standing Orders. I ask that you insist upon being accorded the dignity to which you are entitled and request the Prime Minister to withdraw that reflection made against you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will deal with the matter later. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, I would have thought that what I was saying was in a sense a compliment to the Chair. It was a tribute to the degree of restraint shown by the Chair in the efforts to preserve peace in this chamber. I think that in that regard the Chair can well be praised for the result.

Mr Speaker, I will return to answering the question. The honourable gentleman is trying to suggest that there would be a difficult period after the 3 -months pause in prices and wages. Quite clearly, if the unions accept what is now before them, and it is open to acceptance, there is an opportunity for all Australians to benefit. There is also an opportunity within that 3- months period for different sectors within the community, including the officers of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Prices Justification Tribunal, to sit down and examine the transitional arrangements that would be made for a smooth end to the 3-months pause to see what ought to be done thereafter. That is the second question at the moment. The first one is to try to get adequate union support for the initial freeze, something which people throughout the

Australian community want but which one or two members of the Opposition have been seeking to undermine.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I wish to rule on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Banks. I had misunderstood the intentions of the Prime Minister. Now that he has made them clear, there is no substance to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Banks.

page 900

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: PERISHABLES

Mr UREN:

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister, having noted his answer to the honourable member for Prospect that there will be no exemptions to the price freeze. Was the Minister for Primary Industry expressing Government policy when he said that it is just not possible to have price restraint on perishables such as fish and vegetables?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The policy has been stated for the whole Government.

page 900

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: PENSIONS

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware of a great deal of concern among some pensioners that they may have to forgo pension increases during the proposed prices-wages freeze? Can the Minister clarify the situation for the House and advise exactly what is to happen to pensions during the proposed freeze?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– Last November the Government passed legislation to increase pensions each May and November in line with the consumer price index. I can assure the honourable member and all honourable members- indeed, I can assure all pensioners- that social security pensioners and their beneficiaries will receive increases due to them from the first pay period in May. The maximum increase will be $3.60 a week in the standard rate of pension and $6 a week in the combined married rate. The maximum standard rate will then become $47.10 a week from May 1977. The maximum combined married rate will then become $78.50 a week from May 1977. 1 think it is worthwhile to remind the House that all pensioners in Australia will then have benefited to the extent of an additional $8 13m since the Fraser Government came to office. In the last week of April the Minister for Social Security will be advising all the pensioners and their beneficiaries of this change.

page 901

QUESTION

AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr SHORT:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and relates to the rolling strike at present being conducted by the Victorian Branch of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, led by a Mr Wally Curran, over a 19-point log of claims which includes demands for a $20 a week wage increase and a 9-day working fortnight. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the union has refused to take the log of claims to arbitration, despite a publicly expressed willingness on the pan of the meatworks operators to abide by any arbitrated decision? Does this action represent a major disregard of industrial law by Mr Curran and his associates at great cost to his union’s members, meatworks operators, meat growers, consumers and the nation at large? Does the union operate under a federal award? If the answer to the last question is in the affirmative will the Minister do all in his power to bring the present dispute to arbitration?

Mr STREET:
LP

– Yes, it is my understanding that the rolling strike to which the honourable gentleman refers has virtually brought the meat processing industry in Victoria to a halt. The 19-point log of claims that the honourable member referred to contains demands which quite obviously are way beyond the wage indexation guidelines. Over the past few weeks the union concerned has shown a complete disregard for the interests not only of many of its members but also of members of other unions who have had to be stood down as a result of its action. I think the important point needs to be made that if demands such as those being made by this union were granted the inevitable result would be thousands fewer jobs in Australia. In that sense, the union concerned not only is uncaring of the effect of its action on the associated people who have been stood down but also is completely uncaring of those people who do not have jobs at present and thousands of others whose jobs would be put at risk if increases such as those being claimed were granted.

page 901

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: PRICE INCREASES ALREADY APPROVED

Mr YOUNG:

-I ask the Prime Minister: In accordance with decisions made by the Prices Justification Tribunal prior to last Thursday to allow price increases to some industries, will those industries be allowed during the next three months to put up their prices?

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

-The position is that the Government has requested any companies which had obtained approval for price increases prior to last Thursday but had not yet implemented those increases not to do so. The Secretary of my Department contacted a number of the companies concerned and received assurances from them that the price increases previously granted will not be implemented. We are extemely encouraged by the response that has been forthcoming bearing in mind that in many cases these companies are forgoing price increases which have been caused by earlier wage increases. Therefore these companies have had no opportunity of passing on the effects of those wage increases.

The Government hopes that during the period between last Thursday and when the broad agreement of which the Prime Minister spoke is achieved, all companies in this situation will comply with the Government’s request, notwithstanding the considerable difficulty that some of them will experience. The response to the specific approaches we have made encourages us to believe that these companies will so respond.

page 901

QUESTION

TASMANIA: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Mr HODGMAN:

– My question to the Minister for Transport also relates to the isolation of Tasmania from the mainland as a result of the transport industry strike. Was an agreement made some time ago that Tasmania should be exempted from the disastrous effects of such strike action within the transport industry? Can the Government do anything to ensure that Tasmania is in future exempted and that Tasmanians will not continue to suffer with monotonous regularity from the actions of mainland industrial gangsters?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– During the course of the last couple of days I have expressed concern and disappointment at the effects that the transport industry strike is having on Tasmania. As my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has pointed out, some 4000 Tasmanians have been stranded or have been unable to return home because of the strike. Many hundreds more Tasmanians have been unable to undertake trips. There have been cases involving bereavement and hardship as a result of the strike. Of course the strike is disastrous for Tasmania, particularly in view of its isolation.

As I understand it, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has, during the course of the last three or four years, agreed to place embargoes on strikes of this nature as they affect Tasmania. But both the President and the ACTU and the Premier of Tasmania have been very silent during the course of this strike in respect of the effect it is having on Tasmania. The Premier of Tasmania may have made some wild appeal to nobody in general terms about the strike, but in terms of specific action, the President of the ACTU has done nothing and the Premier of Tasmania has done less. All in all the people of Tasmania have suffered very seriously.

The Government is concerned about the effects of strikes of this nature. The proposed amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act relate, among other things, to actions which have the effect of interfering with trade and commerce between the States. Section 92 of the Constitution guarantees protection of trade and commerce between the States. Clause 26 of the Bill before the Parliament to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will enable the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to take appropriate action to protect Tasmania on future occasions.

page 902

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: INTEGRATED COMMODITY PROGRAM

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

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade and, incidentally, I believe, the Minister designated to co-ordinate the wages and prices freeze. My question relates to proposals for an integrated program to stabilise prices and for a common fund to provide it with finance which was under discussion at the recent negotiating conference in Geneva of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. I am not referring to the present conference concerning sugar but the previous one. Are coffee, tea and cocoa amongst the commodities included in this integrated commodity program? Are prices for these goods- at particularly high levels and rising at present- causing difficulties for the price-wage freeze? If so, why did Australia adopt a negative position at the Conference and thus contribute to the breakdown of the discussions and endanger a serious attempt to reduce inflationary pressures from commodity imports?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– My colleague, the Minister for Overseas Trade, recently gave a most comprehensive reply to the whole question of the Government’s attitude towards the Common Fund. The basis of the honourable gentleman’s question illustrates part of the dilemma of the Labor Party. It is quite prepared to pursue any area which will provide cheap foodstuffs but it fails to recognise that there needs to be a comprehensive pattern which concerns itself not only with the prices to the consumer but also the returns to the producers. At the present time, the producers obviously have a very real interest in the prices and wages freeze. As the Prime Minister has said today, in every possible area within the community we would hope that the prices and wages freeze will apply. One would hope the honourable gentleman might suggest that the objective he apparently expresses in his question should apply to the wage sector and to the trade union movement so that they too might get behind the Government in its efforts towards a prices and wages freeze.

As to the attitudes within the Common Fund, and the whole proposal, the suggestion in the Common Fund is one which seems to us to have a good many fundamental difficulties for a country such as Australia. Its principal proposal is to try to stabilise prices and yet, in the basis of contribution, we have some misgivings as to the way in which it would act. The misgivings of the Government were effectively expressed at the time the Government’s representative registered his vote at the meeting to which the honourable gentleman has referred.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

page 902

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY MEMBER

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I wish to raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, concerning the comments contained in a question asked at question time by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I ask, Mr Speaker, whether in your opinion we may regard as parliamentary the term ‘mainland gangsters’ used to describe some section of the Australian community. A number of honourable members on this side of the House are former trade union officials and perhaps we saw the Parliament being used in that way. I think on one occasion he described people in his electorate as hoboes and drunks, but to call people mainland gangsters -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I have noted his point. The fact is that there is nothing unparliamentary about the remark in the sense that Standing Orders would prohibit it. If the remark was unparliamentary I would be required by the forms of the House to call upon the honourable member to withdraw it although I am bound to say that the use of such terms does not assist the reputation of this House or of parliamentary debate.

page 902

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the resolutions of the ninety-ninth meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council.

page 903

ACADEMIC SALARIES TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 I table a copy of a determination and report of the Academic Salaries Tribunal in relation to annual leave (bonus) payments due to academic staff in December 1977 which was tabled in the Senate on 31 March 1977.

Dr Klugman:

-I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the document tabled by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations imply that the Government already has broken the freeze as far as academic salaries are concerned by increasing annual leave payments of academic salaries by17½ per cent?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

page 903

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on monochrome television receivers and certain electronic components. For the information of honourable members I also present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the Australian olive industry.

page 903

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I move:

I move this motion at this time because it is obvious that there is rank confusion in the community.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will need to put his motion in writing.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I have my motion in writing. The motion is designed to have the Prime Minister make a specific statement, on which all sections of the community can depend, relating to this proposal at the earliest possible momentand that is now. It is quite clear that the State Premiers, business leaders, trade unionists and suppliers of goods in our community do not know exactly what is included and what is excluded in the proposal. If the proposition put by the Prime Minister and the Premiers is to have any chance of success it must be in definite and specific terms. Those who are asked to make sacrifices must be in a position where they can see that the sacrifices are in the national interest and not in the narrow interest of some Government economic policy or some other purpose. At the moment that is not so. Certainly there is no confidence in any section of the community that the Government knows what the wages and prices freeze is all about. If such a statement can be made it is important that it be made at this time by the Prime Minister in specific terms.

I have moved this motion because I believe that the House of Representatives is entitled to be informed fully of the Government’s position relative to this question. We are not being informed. We are being fobbed off. Too many major decisions on economic policy are being announced and contradicted by Government Ministers outside the House. The Prime Minister, in the opinion of the Opposition, did not give a satisfactory answer to a question on this subject at question time. I hope that the House will agree to this proposition. It asks for what the Australian community is asking- not plaudits, not platitudinous statements, but factual evidence that the Government knows what it is talking about and what the prices freeze, to which it has given a lot of publicity, is all about.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I wish to second the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before the honourable gentleman proceeds I would like to see the motion. I thank the honourable member for Corio. The honourable member for Port Adelaide may proceed.

Mr YOUNG:

– It is incredible almost to the point of being unbelievable that the Government has denied its responsibility to raise this matter of national importance in the Parliament today.

Mr Sinclair:

– I wish to take a point of order. This motion relates to a request for the Government to make a statement. The Government intends to make such a statement. It will be made later today by the Minister responsible. It is fully our intention to make such a statement. I suggest, for that reason, that it is beyond the relevance of the Opposition to canvass the issues at this stage.

Mr SPEAKER:

-What the Leader of the House has said is not a point of order. I think it is a point of explanation which may assist the House, but it is not a point of order.

Mr YOUNG:

-I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ruling. Obviously there is reluctance on behalf of the Government to have this matter discussed. There is an obvious reluctance on the part of the Prime Minister to give specific answers to specific questions on this matter of national importance. We have found an incredible situation today -

Mr Nixon:

– Where do you stand?

Mr YOUNG:

-I will tell the honourable member where I stand. I think this Government is continuing on its path of trying to. hoodwink wage and salary earners so that the real wages of people at the end of this year -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I know that the honourable member for Port Adelaide is responding to an interjection. Nevertheless, his remarks must remain relevant to the motion before the Chair for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr YOUNG:

– There are a number of matters about which the Australian public obviously is entitled to know and which have not been explained to us today. We find that the Government has endorsed the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) moving some flimsy resolution as a matter of public importance so that debate on that matter can take place, yet 2 1 Ministers do not have the courage to get up and defend the decision which has been taken and which affects everybody living in this country.

We hear talk about the wives of trade union people. The wives of trade union people and the wives of all wage and salary earners want to know what will happen with the prices of vegetables, meat and old products that are newly packaged. What will happen to all the products on the supermarket shelves that were discounted last week but which are back to normal prices this week? What will happen to all the rents and interest rates? We want to know quite specifically what will happen. The only thing we know is that the Government wants the cancellation of the 2 national wage hearings. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) says that it will be very difficult for some of the companies not to take the price increases which have been granted to them by the Prices Justification Tribunal prior to last Thursday because they are based on price increases which occurred in the last quarter. The next national wage hearing is based upon the price increases which are already flowing throughout the community. The Government is asking people to take a substantial drop in their living standards of no less than 4 per cent. The Government knows and the Treasury knows that it is the experience of all overseas countries that this is a sham.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will remain relevant to the motion.

Mr YOUNG:

- Mr Speaker, I think it is very relevant in that the Opposition is asking someone from the Government to get on his feet, to stop quibbling about the actions of the Labor Government between 1972 and 1975, to take responsibility for the Government’s own actions in 1977 and tell us what the hell is going on in Australia. What is the Government supposed to be doing? Out of the blue, after a Premiers Conference, we are told that there will be a wage and price freeze for 3 months. No one had heard of it before. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a broadcast to the nation 4 days before the announcement yet it was not mentioned. Now we are told that the billions of dollars worth of goods coming in from overseas will be subject to the freeze. The Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) has nothing to say about building materials. What about all the goods that have quotas put on them on an annual basis. Will they not come in over the next 3 months? Will those quotas be met in a 9-month period instead of in a 12-month period? Are we going to tell all the other countries in the world that they are not to put up the prices of goods which flow to Australia?

We have an incredible situation and we want to know quite specifically what will happen. We do not want to be told in very broad terms what will happen. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has said- this must be the climax of question time- that the doctors have told him that they would be prepared, as part of the package, to forgo any fee increases between now and the end of the year. On average, general practitioners have a yearly income of $60,000. They could forgo an increase in fees for the next 10 years.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Cohen:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a point of explanation, the same as the Minister for Prime Industry (Mr Sinclair) raised. Will he allow the statement that is to be made to be debated later today?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I am about to put the motion to the House.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. A motion is before the Chair moved by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and seconded by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The motion reads in these terms:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister making an immediate statement setting out in specific terms the guidelines on the wages and prices freeze which he indicates has been in effect for 5 days, specifically whether primary products, perishable goods, imports, tariff charges and the flow-on of the March indexation decisions, which have been the subject of conflicting statements by the Prime Minister, State Premiers and Federal Ministers, are involved in the freeze and under what circumstances and by what means the prices control will be implemented and maintained.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry and Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– The Government opposes this motion. As I have already indicated, the Government intends that a statement should be made later today. There will be a debate on that statement and the statement will canvass developments today. There will be a debate upon that statement which will enable members on both sides of the House to express their position towards the voluntary price and wage freeze. In speaking to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders I think it is also necessary for me to say that the Labor Party, yet again, has disgraced itself not only in its performance at question time today but also in raising this motion. Instead of getting behind a move which is supported by its own State parliamentary colleagues and its own Party colleagues and endorsed widely throughout the community, it is trying to point out those areas in which it will be extraordinarily difficult for it to apply.

Mr Cohen:

– That is because they have seen through your hypocrisy.

Dr Klugman:

– You asked for exemptions last Thursday.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Again, it is not prepared to get behind the trade union movement and say to the trade union movement that there is a reason for prices and wages to be frozen for that period.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I call upon the honourable member for Robertson to withdraw.

Mr Cohen:

– Withdraw what?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call upon him to withdraw.

Mr Cohen:

– I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call upon all members on the left of the chair to remain silent while the debate ensues.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. When I sought to draw your attention to an unparliamentary remark a couple of weeks ago you threatened that if ever again I drew attention to an unparliamentary remark you would name me. What is the position now?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is not a vehicle for the Labor Party to seek to pursue its vendetta against its present Leader. Yet that would seem to be the principal purpose of the interventions we have had in this debate. Obviously, throughout the whole of the Australian community, a good many people are determined to make this effort work. It would be a great shame on the Labor Party in this Parliament if only it and a few executive members of the trade union movement were opposed to it. I hope that when the statement is made later today and debated and in the debate on the matter of public importance to take place shortly, we will see a genuine effort by those members of the Opposition who, I have no doubt, support the freeze in their own hearts to do so vocally in this place. I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

– I take the unusual course of inquiring from the mover of the motion whether, in the circumstances outlined by the Leader of the House that a statement will be made, he wishes to proceed with the motion.

Mr Scholes:

– The motion calls for a statement by the Prime Minister. I think the present situation is of sufficient importance to warrant such a statement. There has not been any undertaking -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman wishes to pursue the motion.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (MrSpeaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 76

NOES: 33

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Opposition members- The ‘ayes’ have it.

Opposition members- Yes.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 33

NOES: 76

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 906

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

- Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a statement concerning the Government’s arrangements for receiving independent advice on science and technology.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Science and technology have played an important part in Australia’s development and, if properly encouraged, they may be expected to be even more important for Australia’s future. They are basic to our capacity to meet the challenges presented by issues such as energy and resource availability, industrial productivity and competitiveness, urbanisation and the management of the environment. To ensure that our valuable but limited scientific and technological resources are applied most effectively to Australia’s problems, an integrated effort is needed. Advisory machinery of the highest quality is essential if the Government is to make the right decisions. The Government must be able to draw on the best available advice if it is to formulate clear objectives, establish the most effective and appropriate institutional means for achieving them, and assign priorities on a rational and considered basis.

Science policy advisory machinery was first established in Australia by a Liberal-Country Party Government. In April 1972, the then Prime Minister- the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr William McMahon)- announced the formation of the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology. This reflected the importance the coalition parties attached to having expert and co-ordinated advice on policies for science and technology. As honourable members may recall, I was the responsible Minister when this original Advisory Committee was established in 1972. The Committee was disbanded in February 1973. It was not replaced for some years- not until mid- 1975 when an Interim Australian Science and Technology Council was set up pending the passage of legislation. Soon after the 1975 election, a small and highly qualified advisory group was formed to advise me on the role of a permanent science and technology council. Having considered the advisory group’s report, I announced that the Interim Australian Science and Technology Council would continue, but with some changed membership and functions.

As the advisory group recommended, the reconstituted Interim Council was asked to report to the Government on long term arrangements for an independent science and technology advisory body. The Interim Council consulted widely and considered a large number of submissions which substantially represented scientific and technological opinion in Australia. The Council’s report, presented in November 1976, indicated that there was widespread support for the creation of a permanent and independent science and technology council. The Government has accepted the Interim Council ‘s recommendation that the Australian Science and Technology Council be established as a permanent and independent body. As it is of great importance not only that ASTEC be independent but also that it be seen to be independent, the Government intends to establish ASTEC as a statutory body. The establishment of an independent science and technology policy advisory council on a permanent basis is a significant advance. The history of science bodies in Australia has been chequered, and making ASTEC a statutory body will give the Council the status, permanence and stability which it certainly requires having regard to past events.

The functions of ASTEC are to advise the Government on science and technology, including: the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development and application of science and technology in relation to the national well-being; the adequacy, effectiveness and overall balance of the national effort in science and technology in government, industry, education and other sectors of the community; the assessment of gaps and overlaps in science and technology in Australia; the identification and support of new ideas of science and technology likely to be of national importance; the practical development and application of research discoveries and the fostering of technological innovation in industry; and the means of improving efficiency in the use of resources related to science and technology.

The Council will have a strategic role in assisting the Government to encourage Australian science and technology to meet the nation’s needs and objectives. It will have no executive responsibilities but will be able to advise on operational arrangements.

ASTEC’s knowledge and analysis of science and technology will be valuable to many arms of government. The Government expects the Council to inform itself and be informed of relevant government policies and to take into consideration economic and budgetary implications in discharging its functions. ASTEC will draw on existing departments and agencies for the expertise, knowledge and assistance necessary to enable these functions to be discharged effectively. But this will in no way compromise the independence of ASTEC.

Pending the passage of appropriate legislation, ASTEC has been established by Executive action and is now continuing its important work. As the Council report recommended, ASTEC will report to me, and its secretariat, which will be small in number, will be attached to my Department. The Government has agreed that ASTEC should prepare a report on the present state of science and technology in Australia as recommended by the Interim Council. ASTEC will prepare this report in parallel with conducting investigations and providing advice on matters either referred to it by the Government, or which arise from its own initiatives. Since the Government will be making decisions on matters upon which ASTEC will be reporting, the timing of the release of ASTEC ‘s reports will be for the Minister to decide. The Government intends that ASTEC ‘s reports shall be made public unless there are overwhelming reasons- in the national interest- for not doing so.

ASTEC will have a part-time Chairman and Deputy Chairman, and up to thirteen other parttime members. The Council’s membership will have experience and knowledge across the spectrum of science and technology and its impact on the community. Members will be selected for their individual qualities and on the basis of their ability to contribute to the work of the Council, not as representatives of particular interest groups. I am pleased to announce that Professor Geoffrey Badger has accepted the position of Chairman of ASTEC. Professor Badger has had a distinguished career as a scientist. After several years as a Professor of Organic Chemistry, at the University of Adelaide, he served for a short time as a member of the Executive of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. He has just completed a 10-year term as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide and is now a Research Professor in that University. He is the President of the Australian Academy of Science and the Chairman of its Science and Industry Forum. Professor Badger has played a significant part in developing and presenting the case for an independent advisory council on science and technology. In 1967 he chaired a working party, established by the Science and Industry Forum of the Academy of Science, to examine the need for science policy machinery in Australia. I recall that as Minister for Education and Science I took part in the discussion of his report at a subsequent meeting of the Forum. Professor Badger again stressed the need for an independent science advisory council in a Presidential Paper published by the Academy in 1975.

Another eminent scientist, Professor Sir Rutherford Robertson, Fellow of the Royal Society of London and Past President of the Australian Academy of Science, has accepted the position of Deputy Chairman of the Council. Sir Rutherford is Director of the Research School of Biological Sciences at the Australian National University. The Government is particularly grateful for his continued service on that body. The other members of the council are:

Professor B. D. O. Anderson, F.A.A, Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of Newcastle;

Mr S. G. W. Burston, O.B.E., Chairman, Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council;

Dr L. W. Davies, F.A.A., F.T.S., Chief Scientist, AWA Research Laboratory;

Mr A. W. Hamer, Managing Director, ICI Australia Limited;

Professor B. E. Hobbs, Professor of Geology, Department of Earth Sciences, Monash University;

Mr B. T. Loton, Executive General Manager, Steel Division, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited;

Sir Louis Matheson, K.B.E., C.M.G., F.T.S.; Professor Sir Gustav Nossal, C.B.E., F.A.A.,

Director, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research;

Mr A. H. Parbo, Managing Director, Western Mining Corporation;

Mr L. G. Peres, Reader in Political Science, University of Melbourne;

Mr K. C. Stone, Secretary, Victorian Trades Hall Council;

Professor R. Street, F.A.A., Director, Research School of Physical Sciences, Australian National University;

Mr J. G. Wilson, C.B.E., Managing Director, Australian Paper Manufacturers Limited

The Government is fortunate to have acquired such a distinguished group of people to advise it on scientific and technological matters. I would like to thank the organisations to which the members of ASTEC are affiliated for releasing their services to take up the task of this important advisory body. I should also like to place on record the Government’s appreciation of the work which the Interim Council, chaired by Sir Louis Matheson, has undertaken in preparing its report. Sir Louis and the members of the Interim Council have contributed considerable time and effort. Their advice has greatly assisted the Government to make decisions on long term arrangements for obtaining independent policy advice on science and technology in Australia. For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Interim Australian Science and Technology Council entitled Future Arrangements for an Australian Science and Technology Council.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement on the same matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am pleased with some parts of the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and displeased with other parts of it. I am glad that the Government has seen the need to maintain advisory machinery of the highest quality and that it realises that no government- Liberal or Labor- can make properly assessed decisions involving science unless it has the advice of scientists. No Cabinet in the world is capable of making considered and sensible decisions involving science unless it has the advice of experts in the field of science. My Government realised the need for a science council. We established an interim science council for the purpose of informing the Government of what it ought to be doing in the field of science. I am sorry to note that the same high scientific calibre which characterised that council has not been reflected in the Australian Science and Technology Council which is now proposed by the Prime Minister.

No government department should have the right, as a matter of common sense, to make a decision involving any aspect of science unless that department has the benefit of a body such as this. It flows from what I have just said that the policy of the Prime Minister ought to be that none of his Ministers should be permitted to make binding decisions in the name of the Government in relation to matters which have a scientific undertone or overtone unless that matter has first gone to the Science and Technology Council and has been studied and reported on by the Council. This does not mean that the Government has to act upon the report of the Science Council. But it does mean that the

Government has to understand that the decisions which it takes are based upon sound scientific advice or are taken in the face of sound scientific advice. I am glad that the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Interim Council that the Australian Science and Technology Council should be established as a permanent and independent body. It is of great importance that ASTEC should not only be independent but also be seen to be independent. For this reason the Government is to be commended for following the intention which I had while Minister for Science of establishing ASTEC as a statutory body.

The Government needs to go further than I was permitted to go. It needs to make certain that the body is absolutely independent not only of all government departments but also of the Public Service Board. Unless this statutory body has the right to appoint its own staff, to determine the kinds of people that it needs, to fix the levels of need from a manpower point of view and in every possible way to be completely independent of every branch of government activity, particularly of the Public Service Board, it will always be seen to be no more than the creature of the government of the day.

I believe there should be a committee of science Ministers. There is only one Minister for Science but there are at least six or seven and perhaps 9 Ministers whose departments follow activities which have undertones or overtones of science interest. All those departments which are affected by science, or which have to make decisions which are in essence scientific decisions, ought to be represented on a special committee of Ministers of whom the chairman should be the Prime Minister, if he is available. If not, it should be the Minister for Science. This committee of Ministers should be the committee that looks at the reports of ASTEC. This committee, having studied the reports of ASTEC, would be in a position to invite its members to sit with it, as I always did when we were making decisions involving matters of science. The committee of Ministers and the committee of scientists could sit together in the Cabinet room and informally, frankly and candidly discuss the pros and cons of the report that ASTEC was putting forward. Then the committee of Ministers, as was our custom, could ask the ASTEC representatives to retire while the Ministers remained in the Cabinet room to determine what the recommendations would be.

Unless that is done the Council will fail in its purpose because ASTEC will be reporting to the Prime Minister and he will be sending its report to the bureaucrats in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who know absolutely nothing about science. If this happens, the Prime Minister will be back where he started. Bureaucrats with no knowledge of science will be telling him to reject the recommendations of the people who understand what science is all about. This is a terribly important thing. The Prime Minister has not stated whether he intends to follow the procedure I have outlined, but if he does not follow that procedure he will finish up in no better position than the position of governments for the last 76 years. The position of governments over the last 76 years has been absolutely deplorable because no government, Liberal or Labor, in this decade, the last one, the one before that or going back to 1901 has had enough common sense to realise that decisions involving science are not decisions which laymen, whether they be Ministers or public servants who are not scientists, can sensibly be expected to make. Here is an opportunity for the Government to rectify the mistakes that all of us have made over the last 76 years. I note that the Prime Minister has not ruled out the prospect of the establishment of a committee of science Ministers and of joint meetings of ASTEC and that ministerial science committee; nor has the Prime Minister ruled out the prospect that the reports of ASTEC will be considered by Ministers who have a scientific content in their ministries instead of going to bureaucrats.

I believe that the Government is wise in having chosen a man of the calibre of Professor Geoffrey Badger. He is a man of high repute. I would have been equally pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce that Sir Louis Matheson had been appointed again to head ASTEC. For reasons which I have no doubt the Government believes proper it has decided to keep Sir Louis Matheson as a member of ASTEC but not to have him as Chairman. The choice of Professor Geoffrey Badger is an excellent one and I compliment the Prime Minister upon selecting him for the position. I compliment the Prime Minister also upon the selection of Professor Sir Rutherford Robertson as the Deputy Chairman of ASTEC. He too is an excellent choice. Professor Hobbs, Professor Sir Gustav Nossal, Mr Stone and Professor Anderson- I particularly mention Professor Street- are examples of wise selections by the Government. They are all men of great eminence. Some are world renowned for their knowledge of science. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government should see any merit in appointing the Chairman of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, except perhaps to counteract -

Mr Martyr:

– To pull the wool over your eyes.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-To pull the wool over our eyes. I think the honourable member probably is right and that that is about what will happen. How can the Government justify the appointment of a man who is the representative of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd? He will not go on to ASTEC to give his best and an unbiased and rational opinion of what is best for Australia as a whole; all the time he will be having an eye to how each decision will affect the company that employs him- AWA.

Mr Yates:

– He is not as small as that.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Oh, yes he is. Most men are as small as that, unfortunately. We ought to be big enough and grown up enough to realise that when we make selections like this that is the risk we are running. Also on the Council is a representative of ICI Australia Ltd. Why do we need a representative of a British multinational corporation when there are scores of first-class scientists in this country who could render great service to ASTEC and this nation? These are the kinds of people we should appoint instead of filling the Council with people we meet at the Melbourne club and of whom we idly ask: ‘What about serving on the Science Council with us; have another drink and you will get on some other council as well ‘.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is a terrible thing to say.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is not. This is precisely how some of these appointments were initiated. I can think of bodies to which representatives of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd could be appointed and could give useful advice to the Government but one of those bodies is certainly not the Australian Science and Technology Council. Why do we need a representative of Western Mining Corporation Ltd on it? For goodness sake, can we not get away from people who have private vested interests in science? Let us have people with academic backgrounds who are beholden to no sectional interest and who can serve on the Council with clean hands and a free mind and be able to say what is best for the interests of the Australian people. I notice also that a reader in political science at Melbourne University is to be appointed to the Council. I never understood that this Australian Science and Technology Council was to be a council that would involve itself in all sciences, including political science. What has political science to do with advising the Government on whether the

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation ought to expand its solar energy division or its activities in some other area of scientific research or whether the Antarctic division ought to be attached to the CSIRO instead of remaining part of the Department of Science? What would this sort of person know about whether the Bureau of Meteorology ought to be attached to the Department of Science or more conveniently attached to some other department? What would these people know about whether Australia ought or ought no to spend some $4m in order to become linked with direct instant translation from Landsat or whether we should have 3, 4, 6 or 9 satellites? These are questions which this Government finally has to determine, particularly with respect to Landsats. Landsats, as they are called, are satellites that are passing over the earth once every 18 days and are essential if we are to be in a position to understand things like floods, bush fires, expectation of crop yields and all the things that are so important to the rural areas. Sooner or later the Government has to decide whether it will become part of this satellite system. But how can a political scientist tell us whether that will be good or bad? The whole thing is too ridiculous for words. Science is not a compartment separate from other aspects of life. The orientation of our society towards the qualitative aspects of growth and towards broad aspects of welfare, however, does require a close integration of science policy with social and economic policy, especialy in relation to long range human objectives of social development.

I want to see, and I should think that all thinking Australians would want to see, a science policy that is conceived in the broadest sense, including a close relationship between technological opportunities and social goals, each being considered in the light of the other. If we are to achieve the goals to which we should aspire the Government will have to promote a better public understanding of the impact of science and technology upon the community than now exists. We have to generate a broad public dialogue involving all of our citizens, not just the scientists. The scientists themselves ought to be the first to realise that their future is bound up with the general public’s understanding of science and that they can derive no benefit from isolating themselves completely from the genera! public. We need a broad involvement of the community in the decision-making processes relating to the priorities and objectives of science and technology, and to that end it is quite critical for the future of our country that we encourage contact between the community and our scientists. I believe that trade unionists do have a role to play, but not a role which predominates over all others. I believe that there is a case for trade unions to be represented on ASTEC.

Mr Yates:

– And business as well?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No, not business. I understand the reason for the interjection and I will give the honourable member the reason why I do not believe that business has the same role to play. This is a council which deals with science and technology. If we are to get the best use out of technology we have to get the co-operation of the trade union movement. There is too often a Luddite approach to technology in this and every other country. We have to make trade unionists understand that greater productivity is one of the goals we all ought to be seeking, and that we cannot get greater productivity without a more sensible use of technology than we have hitherto proved ourselves capable of achieving. It is possible to get a more sensible use of the most advanced technology the world can offer only if the people who use the technological advances- the men in industry, the men in the various fields of endeavour- are satisfied that what is being proposed is for the benefit of the community. We have to make the trade union movement understand that it has a stake in a better and more sensible technological policy.

Mr Corbett:

– And the business leaders too.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The business leaders too, I agree. The interjection is quite germane to what I am saying. The trouble in Australia today is not that working men are lazy or that people are on strike any more than in other countries of the capitalist world. Indeed, in most of the countries of the capitalist world, particularly the part of the world from which the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) springs, people are on strike much more than our people are on strike. One of the greatest troubles in Australia today, one of the main reasons why our productivity is bad, is that management is bad. Australian management is poor.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to remain relevant to the statement, which relates to science.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1 would not mind if you stopped people from interrupting me and making me either talk about things outside the statement or else appear to be frightened to answer them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will give the honourable gentleman suitable protection from now on.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, to this end it is quite critical for the future of our country that we encourage contact between the community and scientists. I repeat that I believe that the trade unionists have a role to play. In order to achieve that contact we must provide adequate and easily understood information about the subject, and at the same time we must explain the kinds of options that are available to us. Having done that, we must then encourage public debate on these issues. I interrupt myself to say that there is no doubt that the issue of whether we mine uranium and export it in the form of yellow cake -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will refer to the Science Council.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am still talking about science. Because I said I was interrupting myself it did not mean that I was interrupting my discussion on science.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat if he does not talk about science in a way which is relevant to the statement.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take your point, Mr Speaker. Uranium and radiation have nothing to do with science. It is a good point. I do not believe that a government acting in splendid isolation from scientific realities can ever adequately define research needs. I do not believe that a government acting in splendid isolation can determine policies that meet the scientific and technological needs of the society that it governs. We need a closer liaison between government, society, scientists and technologists in order that we together may work out our needs and priorities. ASTEC will play a critical role in that task. I reject utterly the view that the public cannot be effectively involved in these processes, but it can do so only through wellinformed public debate. It is quite critical to good policy decision-making that we have alternatives. The alternatives that are presented for public consideration must be alternatives that are intelligible to the public. I want to see the Department of Science, in conjunction with ASTEC, turn its mind to the production of more and more Green Papers on science which canvass in lucid language the issues that have to be determined by the people who elect governments.

Mr Yates:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not understand whether there is a motion before the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will state his point of order.

Mr Yates:

– My point of order is that I am seeking the guidance of the Chair as to whether we have a motion before the House by which the honourable member -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order involved. I call the honourable member for Hindmarsh.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. In this Parliament once an honourable member gets leave to make a statement it means that he has leave to make a statement. That is what I am doing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will resume his speech on the statement.

Mr Yates:

– I withdraw my leave.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is too late. As a matter of fact, I was being encouraged by what seemed to be the intelligent interest the honourable gentleman was taking in my remarks. I want to see the public so deeply involved in discussion on science and technology that it will make science and technology an issue which no political party can dare ignore. Let us face it: On a per capita basis Australia is not spending anything like the amount it ought to be spending in the field of science and technology. The United States budget for energy research almost doubled between 1974-75 and 1975-76. 1 am touching on the subject of energy research. 1 know that that is a ticklish subject, and I shall leave it.

We cannot behave as though the doubling of spending on energy research is not happening all around us; it is happening all around us. It is happening not only in the United States but also in Japan and in all the countries with which we like to compare ourselves. If this situation continues Australia will certainly lag behind its industrialised competitors. When one compares the attention we give to science with that which is given to science in countries such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States, one cannot help but be appalled by the apparent indifference which Australia has shown hitherto towards science and technology.

The greatest knowledge is harboured very often in the minds of people without formal scientific training. I concede that. We all ought to concede it. But one does not need to be an academician of world class to make a judgment on public needs and priorities. However, one must have the facts relating to the needs and to the priorities. For these reasons I have long believed that this Government should begin a publicity campaign aimed at making organised groups within Australia more aware of their vested interests in science and technology. In fact, I see it as a sheer necessity. Perhaps it may be critical to our very existence. Certainly, our position within the industrialised world will be affected very deeply if we bring about better public involvement in discussion relating to science and technology. There is no doubt that the economies of the Western world are stagnating. This is particularly true, unfortunately -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will make his remarks relevant to science.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All right, I will. Now I turn to the role of scientists themselves. Is that okay?

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Speaker, I would like to raise as a point of order the unfairness of the honourable member for Hindmarsh. One of his colleagues asked the Government side whether he could say a few words in this debate. I understand that the honourable member for Hindmarsh requested that he be allowed to speak for 5 minutes. He has now spoken for almost 30 minutes. Obviously, this is just a delaying tactic to stop honourable members on this side of the House bringing forward a debate on a matter of public importance which the people of Australia would like to hear. I ask the honourable member for Hindmarsh to shorten his remarks to allow his colleague, who we are prepared to hear for 5 minutes, to talk.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I understand that my colleague, the honourable member of Cunningham (Mr Connor), has yielded to me on this matter and will not -

Mr Bourchier:

– No, I am referring to the honourable member for Maribyrnong, Dr Cass.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I see.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will resume his statement.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I now turn to the role of scientists themselves. I begin by saying that it is absolutely essential that Australia should maintain the traditional freedom of scientists. Scientists must be given immunity from undue political interference or from undue bureaucratic restrictions. Scientists will need greater facilities and the Government must expand its laboratories if scientists in this country are to be able to give of their best.

I turn now to deal with applied science and technology. I want to emphasise that there are few, if any, aspects that are not of immediate and direct concern to the common man as a consumer. I know that you, Mr Speaker, will not let me talk about the interests of consumer groups; you will say that that has nothing to do with science. So I will have to leave out what would have been some well-chosen remarks about consumer protection and the need for people who buy things to be protected from being cheated.

I want to sum up what I have been saying in a few simple propositions. The ordinary citizenthat is the consumer- has the right to be much more closely involved in discussions on priorities and objectives in science and technology than has ever been the case before. Consumer affairs, and particularly consumer protection, are and will remain closely linked with technology. In future, the relationship will be more strongly articulated. We must constantly keep in mind that the proper aims of technology and applied science are the welfare of the consumers and the betterment of the human condition. We must move to reduce and ultimately to eliminate such social penalties as have so far attended technological and industrial progress. The consumer must have a more effective say in the nature of the market. We must constantly keep in mind that science, technology and consumerism are an integral part of the social processes of our time.

Science and technology should be encouraged to help the majority and not just a privileged or sectional group of the community. Research and science carried out at public expense should return maximum benefit to the Australian people as a whole. Continuing assessment of priorities for various fields of work in science and technology, and for major items in these fields, is always required. In considering this question the Government should have regard to any governmental expenditure on the development of science and should never involve itself in this kind of expenditure unless it has the benefit of the advice of scientists and technologists in relation thereto. There needs to be a much greater liaison between government and the Australian scientists and technologists. I have told the House how this can be achieved through a committee of Science Ministers meeting occasionally with ASTEC and on other occasions meeting alone, then reporting as a committee to the Cabinet. Intervention by governments in the workings of the market economy will increase because of the conflicts between -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will refer to the Science Council.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, Sir. There is little doubt that society is coming to recognise that an increase in the gross national product is not necessarily synonymous with an improvement in living standards. Consequently, if government intervention is to be successful -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will refer to the Science Council.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am coming to science and technology.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will be ordered to resume his seat if he continues to drift from the subject.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Government, therefore, must involve itself in scientific and technological affairs and also in related social and economic factors which in turn affect science and technology. We must be ever watchful to discourage the production and use of consumer items which are environmentally detrimental and wasteful of our resources. Science cannot flourish while at the same time our ecology is being destroyed and our natural resources are being depleted. I believe that we therefore have to study the operations of multi-national corporations.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will refer to the Science Council.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I knew you would stop me once I got on to them, Mr Speaker. But I am about to say -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Well, that is the last time. The next time you will be seated.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was about to say that we must study the impact of multi-national corporations on science and technology in host countries in order that we might ensure that their activities in Australia accord with our national interest. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence and for the great patience which you have displayed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There was no indulgence and no patience. The honourable gentleman was proceeding within the Standing Orders.

page 914

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Apple and Pear Stabilization Amendment Bill 1977.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Amendment

Bill 1977.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Amendment Bill 1977.

Defence Amendment Bill(No.2) 1977.

Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill 1977.

Law Courts (Sydney) Bill 1977.

page 914

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received letters from both the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107 I have selected one matter, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Bradfield, namely:

The need for active support from all sections of the community to ensure the effectiveness of the prices and wages freeze.

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

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

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-For the past hour a small- nay, a miniscule- number of members of the Opposition who are prepared to walk out of step with the leader of their Party, who to say the least has taken a statesman-like approach to this matter, have done everything they can to prevent this Parliament from debating a matter of the utmost national importance, namely, the need for active support from all sections of the community to ensuring the effectiveness of the prices and wages freeze agreed to last Wednesday by 6 Premiers and the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Without question, the decision taken last Wednesday will go down as one of the most significant economic decisions made by any Premiers Conference. All Australians should help to ensure that the decisions taken by that Conference succeed- decisions which were taken on a voluntary basis. I must stress that point. Accordingly workers, and employers, all sections of the Australian community who seriously wish to see the defeat of inflation in our land must start with a voluntary prices and incomes freeze which will break the intolerable nexus which we have experienced for 3 years at least, by which constant increases in wage costs have been followed by even higher increases in other costs and thus higher and higher prices for consumers.

On this very rare occasion last Wednesday the Premiers and the Australian Government agreed to a voluntary 3 months halt in price and wage increases. They agreed that such restraint was urgently needed if Australia was to overcome its current economic difficulties. All heads of government intend to approach employers and professional organisations and put to them the proposal that their membership should voluntarily commit themselves to a pause for a period of 3 months from increases in the prices of their goods and services. It is further proposed that immediately following this agreement there should be a voluntary general pause from increases in prices and incomes and that approaches will be made to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Prices Justification Tribunal for the implementation of the general pause. Governments including local government have agreed to commit themselves not only to not increasing their own charges during that period but also to doing all they can to encourage other sections of the community to do likewise.

This should not be a political exercise. It is above politics because the Premiers, irrespective of the party to which they belong, came to Canberra and signed this agreement. I seek the indulgence of the House to incorporate in Hansard the release put out by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Premiers giving the terms of their agreement.

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

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

The document read as follows-

PRICES AND INCOMES RESTRAINT

The Heads of the Commonwealth and all State Governments, meeting in Premiers’ Conference in Canberra today, unanimously called for a three month halt in price and wage increases. They agreed that such restraint was urgently needed if Australia is to overcome its current economic problems.

It was agreed that all Heads of Governments will approach employer and professional organisations and put to them the proposal that their membership should voluntarily commit themselves to a pause for a period of 3 months from increases in the prices of their goods and services. At the same time, all Heads of Governments will be making an approach to the A.C.T.U. and other employee organisations to seek a voluntary commitment to a 3 months pause from wage increases.

Governments would not expect either the business organisations or the union organisations to agree to such voluntary restraint arrangements without agreement by the others.

Immediately following agreement to the proposal for a voluntary general pause from increases in prices and incomes approaches would be made to the Arbitration Commission and the Prices Justification Tribunal for the implementation of the general pause.

Governments would also use their influence and the powers available to them towards achieving a successful outcome. Governments will commit themselves to not increasing their own charges during the period of the pause. Local Government will be expected to do likewise.

All Heads of Government commit themselves to work for this voluntary pause. Upon its achievement a further conference of Heads of Government will be held to consider what further steps should be taken.

The Heads of Government called on all members of the Australian community to give full support to this vital endeavour to help overcome inflation.

M. Fraser, Prime Minister

Neville Wran, Premier of New South Wales

J. Hamer, Premier of Victoria

Bjelke-Petersen, Premier of Queensland

A. Dunstan, Premier of South Australia

Sir Charles Court, Premier of Western Australia

A. Neilson, Premier of Tasmania

Canberra, 13 April 1977

Mr CONNOLLY:

-I thank the House. All members of this Honourable House are well aware that the Press has always regarded members of Parliament with some scepticism in such matters. Yet the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 4 April had this to say:

It is an encouraging sign that out of all the squabbling which characterises the Premiers ‘ Conference should come unanimous support for a three-month voluntary pause in wages and prices. Indeed, it is hard to remember any major act of economic policy which has won the unqualified support of a Prime Minister and six State Premiers. There is certainly little room for doubt that wage and price inflation lies at the heart of the economic malaise which has gripped this country for so long. Any attempt to bring about an abatement in the rate of inflation, particularly one based on cooperation and mutual sacrifice, must be a worthy objective. No one could wish it anything but success.

It is indeed most regrettable that we have seen in this House today that there is still a miniscule number of Opposition representatives of the Australian people who are not prepared to have at heart the interests of the nation and the constituents whom they allegedly represent. Not only have representatives of every major employer group in the nation pledged their support but also a growing list of companies and organisations have done likewise. They intend to hold their prices at the present level- at the level which applied before the decision was made last Wednesday. By so doing they have demonstrated their willingness to absorb the effects of wage increases. The wage-price freeze clearly requires the total co-operation of all sections of the community, and in particular, the support of the trade union movement is critical.

During question time today the Prime Minister was given the opportunity to emphasise some of the specifics in regard to this proposal. May I enunciate a few of them for the benefit of the

House. Pensions are not affected. The Government’s decision to pass on the full 8 per cent consumer price index increase in respect of pensions will be followed through on 1 May of this year. At the same time, however, obviously prices for items which have been imported cannot be affected in this manner. However, importers who import goods after the commencement of the freeze are expected to abide by the understanding on a voluntary basis. Similarly, the $5.70 wage increase which was decided upon by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission only a few weeks ago will flow into the wage system. No attempt has been made to affect that. Similarly, those award agreements which have been accepted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will go into the system as well. The Government has kept its promise to the States. We are not going to involve the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission before we have done all in our power to carry out detailed negotiations with both employers and employees. The negotiations with employers were completed some time ago and the Government has already made a promise that at 12.30 p.m. tomorrow appropriate ministers are prepared to see all the major roof employee organisations here in Canberra to discuss the matter with them further. Nevertheless, the Government had to appear before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission this morning as did the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other organisations. We were required to do so by virtue of the fact that the Commission called the Government before it. The Prime Minister has emphasised the fact that it is the intention of the Government to carry out to the full, in every sense of the letter, the full agreement entered into by himself and the State Premiers last Wednesday. The gesture of the 7 heads of Government was undoubtedly a determined attempt to achieve a significant reduction in our current rate of inflation, which obviously is hurting and will continue to hurt all segments of the Australian community.

It is depressing to think that those members of the Opposition who believe they stand for compassion and concern are prepared to go against the clearly enunciated belief of the vast majority of the Australian people that inflation is our major enemy and that they are prepared to do all in their power, as individuals and as members of the community, to break the nexus which I mentioned earlier between constant increases in prices and wages and, therefore, further increases in inflation. The Commonwealth Government is also conforming with the heads of Government agreement to stop all previously scheduled increases in its own charges. For example, we have frozen Commonwealth hostel costs and increases in rents of defence forces housing. It is indeed very good to see that various State Premiers, including the Premier of New South Wales, have been prepared also to bring down a freeze on their own costs. We anticipate and sincerely hope that local government will also follow suit in terms of rates and taxes.

Furthermore, the Government has now proposed that, in the event of a broad agreement being reached on the prices and incomes freeze question, a special group comprising representatives of employers, unions and the Prices Justification Tribunal will be formed to continue an on-going advisory function to the Government which will enable us to examine amendments to the Prices Justification Act where they are considered necessary. Wage restraint is the major objective of this exercise, combined with a freezing of increases in costs. In this regard, it is worth noting that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) has also requested the Prices Justification Tribunal to monitor voluntary price pauses in the community and to investigate any claims that increases in prices have occurred and also to encourage the deferring of decisions on price increases. The Minister has also said that where companies have notified price increases to the Prices Justification Tribunal and the 2 1 days in which the Tribunal has to examine these increases has elapsed, he will be approaching them directly with the objective of requesting that they do not pass on those proposed price increases.

The Government is determined that this voluntary exercise will be carried out with all the possible persuasion at its command but I must emphasise what I said earlier: This is voluntary. This agreement brings together for the first time, probably since World War II, a national consensus. We need to inspire every Australian regardless of the political allegiance in the expectation that by working together we can break the back of this national menace. Why, only the other day a survey of a thousand people was carried out in Sydney and Melbourne. Of that number, 76 per cent of unionists and 74 per cent of non-unionists favoured a freeze because they believed that it would peg prices and, therefore, a reduction of wages through their pegging was something worth while. Only 4.5 per cent of unionists and 3 per cent of the non-unionists questioned considered that a wages and prices freeze was a bad idea. For the first time for many years we do face a potential national consensus.

As I said earlier, this should not be a cynical political exercise but it must succeed if we are to overcome the fundamental difficulties facing Australia. Regrettably there are members of the Opposition, such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who sees himself as a future Leader of the Opposition, who do not agree with the program.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to see a price freeze only. Why would he want to see a price freeze only? How can the link between price increases and wage increases be ignored? As I understand it, back in 1973 and 1974 Premier Hamer at Premiers Conferences offered to the Prime Minister of the time the concept of a voluntary prices and wages freeze. Most of the States at the time were prepared to consider the proposal seriously, but regrettably the then Government, taking the view, as it always did, that all power has to reside in Canberra, decided to seek a change to the Constitution and bring to the Commonwealth Parliament power over wages and prices. It is a matter of record that the Australian people were not prepared to accept that proposition. But they are prepared to accept a voluntary price and wage freeze. That is what this Government is asking them to accept, and it is what all the State Premiers, Labor and Liberal alike, are asking their people to accept.

The not inconsiderable persuasion power at our disposal will be totally committed to ensuring that this exercise is successful. We will not fail the Australian people. They deserve better than that. They deserve better than politicians who want to offer them the world but know full well that they cannot deliver the goods. They deserve better than the political hypocrites who go before the people time after time hoping that by so doing they can delude them long enough. It is not a case of religion being the opiate of the masses, a remark once made by Marx; it is a case of politics without principle being the opiate of the masses.

We have seen today, as we saw last Wednesday, the Premiers of all the States and the Australian Government combining in a most unsordid act to see that this exercise succeeds. It is only on the basis of consensus that success can be shared by the entire Australian people. It is only fair for me to note that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) took the view- the correct one- that although he was not altogether enthusiastic about this proposal, nevertheless it should be given a trial. In his television interview of last week he said:

Since 7 heads of government from both sides of the political fence have decided that things are so bad that we need a freeze then we should give it an adequate trial.

That is at least an Australian point of view- give it a fair go. That is why we are here and that is why the Australian people elected us. The policies which are directed at improving the lot of all Australians, regardless of their wealth or position in society, can be achieved only by defeating the obvious national problem of inflation. That should be clear to us all. The expectation of inflation which has been dogging our steps for so long must be broken, but this can be done only in the minds of every individual Australian. On this occasion I ask the Australian nation to pull together to make sure that we show those who follow us the stuff of which this generation is made.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The hypocrisy of this matter of public importance was illustrated in the speech of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). To start off with he said that the subject was above politics. He then talked utter rubbish about the Opposition delaying the discussion. It was utter rubbish because there is no business to talk of on the notice paper. There is no way that the Opposition could delay this discussion even if it wanted tq do so. In fact we do not want to delay the discussion. We want to debate it, although we would have preferred to debate the motion that I submitted to the Speaker on behalf of the Opposition.

When this nation learns in clear and coherent terms from the Fraser Government the implications of a so-called prices and wages freeze and more details concerning that freeze, and if the people judge those economic policies to be fair, effective and workable, there will be active support from the whole community as called for in this matter of public importance. As it is, the Fraser Government’s anti-inflationary policies have been incoherent, erratic and unfair and are not a promising background for the consensus which is so badly needed. The Opposition lodged a matter of public importance in similar terms for debate today. On my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues I lodge an objection in the strongest possible terms to the virtually unprecedented decision to choose and accept a pious proposed discussion, such as the one we have before us, from a Government back bencher when there was a matter of public importance of more substance on this subject put forward by an Opposition front bencher. Frankly, I consider it a singular piece of political partisanship by an official office-holder that this has happened.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member that if, in the circumstances, he wished to continue his remarks along this line, the proper procedure would have been to move a dissent from the Speaker’s ruling on the acceptance of the particular matter of public importance.

Mr HURFORD:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your ruling that I am out of order and I will withdraw my remarks. I will address my remarks to the subject as it is. Australia desperately needs a coherent, logical and workable economic strategy to recover from the present serious economic situation of raging inflation and the worst unemployment for 40 years. The Fraser Government, in office now for over 17 months and in power for over 16 months, has failed miserably to deliver what is needed. The economic policies hitherto adopted by the Liberal and National Country Party Government have clearly been so wrong that the Australian Labor Party Opposition has been and is still reluctant to damn hastily and irrevocably any new economic initiative. Something new is badly needed. Like our colleagues, the State Labor Premiers, the Opposition does not want to deter something new being produced, provided it is along the right lines and provided it is fair, effective and workable. It is in this context that we view and examine the so-called prices and wages freeze. Any measure which reduces inflation, any measure which might create jobs and reduce unemployment, any measure which will spread fairly across the community the sacrifices which are essential if we are to recover from our economic ill-health, will be welcomed and supported by the Australian Labor Party. Frankly, all the signs, in the few days which we have had to observe those signs, are that the latest erratic announcement concerns no such measure. In short, the Opposition is cynical and it has a thorough right to be cynical.

I will tell the House and the people of Australia why the Opposition is justifiably cynical and why it is the duty of the Opposition to raise important questions today about this latest announcement. Firstly, let me dwell on the incoherence of the announcement. What has been the essential planning for this so-called freeze; what is the machinery to police it? We hear that the Prices Justification Tribunal is to be given a new lease of life. Is this not the very body which was to be disbanded by this Fraser Government? Did not the Liberal and National Country parties fight and win an election only 16 months ago on a policy of terminating the life of the Prices Justification Tribunal? In the meantime, have Government supporters not only somersaulted on yet another policy- this time, thank goodness seeing the error of their waysbut also watered down the effectiveness of this Tribunal and altered its powers so that it is now not nearly as significant in seeing fair play on the prices front as it was previously? What confidence can the country have in a measure which relies so heavily on an institution in which the Government has so little confidence and to which it has given so little support? Incidentally, is there any honourable member who thinks that the Prices Justification Tribunal, after the imposition of staff ceilings by the Fraser Government, will have an adequate staff to watch over thoroughly and monitor this so-called prices and wages freeze? Is that being coherent?

It is no wonder the Opposition is justifiably cynical. I wish to add 2 interesting pieces of information on this subject. The economy was originally item No. 14 on the Premiers Conference agenda, after discussions on whether there should continue to be an Australia Day holiday. This signifies how well planned was this particular measure. Further, there was not to be any statement today about this freeze by the Government until the Opposition at question time put questions to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and later moved a motion to suspend Standing Orders in order to discuss this subject. That is the ad hoc way in which a statement on the details of this scheme will come before this Parliament. Is there any wonder that we are cynical about it? The ad hockery has to be seen to be believed.

Now let us examine what form of price restraint we are to have. Does anyone feel that he knows the answer to that question? I do not. How can there be a freeze which is supposed to work, even a voluntary one, when so many exceptions are announced so soon? One of the first persons to step in and unilaterally exempt his own area was a Federal Minister, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). Frankly, I have sympathy for the farmers. With very few exceptions they are not doing well. I am not suggesting that there is not a good case for them to be exempted. But is a freeze a freeze when there are such significant exceptions? Is it not then a farce? I raise the question. The people need to know the answers to such questions before they give their active support. Surely we should at least have time to consider the statement that has now been promised by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) before coming to a conclusion on a proposition such as this, put before this House in a cynical and political fashion.

What about tea, coffee and chocolate price rises which are in the pipeline? Is there any subsidy to keep them steady or are these more exceptions? Will the Minister’s statement later in the day give us any news about tea, coffee and chocolate prices? What about the prices of imports in the pipeline? Are these to be frozen, or are they more exceptions? I remind the House that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) answered a question on notice from me recently in the following terms:

In its recent National Wage Case submission the Commonwealth presented projections of the CPI which assumed that the devaluation -

Brought on by this Government- would directly increase the CPI one per cent in the March quarter and 2 per cent in the June quarter of 1 977.

Who is bearing the brunt of these price increases? Is it wage and salary earners who are expected to freeze their incomes or is it those who have power over prices who will bear the loss? When will we have a coherent statement which tells us all these answers? Will tonight’s hastily prepared statement from the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs give us the answers? I suspect that it will not. How can we expect people to give their active support when there is no information from the Fraser Government about these vital questions? At the moment there is utter confusion. I assert that the Labor State Premiers had reason to have expected a more resolute leadership from the national Government about these matters when they went along with the proposal. They are to be commended in saving us from further confusion when this floundering Government was about to break the voluntary nature of the freeze in putting a hardline submission to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Thank goodness the Labor Premiers stepped in yesterday and stopped that happening.

Next, let us examine the record of the present Prime Minister and the coalition parties which support him in relation to freezes. We are reminded in a major newspaper today that some weeks after the Budget last year the Prime Minister told 3 senior rural journalists in an interview which was published soon afterwards in, among other places, Country Life that a wage-price freeze was not an option. He also said that such freezes had not worked anywhere in the world and that such a freeze would simply cause a wage and prices explosion when it lifted. What has made the Prime Minister change his mind? Do we not have the right to know the answer to that question before blindly following the sentiment of this pious matter we are debating which states the need for active support from all sections of the community to ensure the effectiveness of such a freeze? When the Prime Minister himself is on record against such a freeze, why should we sycophantly accept without argument this call prior to the Prime Minister coming into this House and explaining to the House and to the people why he has changed his mind? Why has he done an about-face? I repeat that so far all we have received from this Prime Minister and his Government is incoherent and erratic action. I cite another question is our minds which gives rise to inevitable cynicism. Are not the proponents of this latest economic measure, this latest grasping for straws, the very people who, at the end of 1 973, just over 3 years ago, went out on the hustings and successfully campaigned for the defeat of a referendum which would have given powers over wages and prices to the national government? Why did the Government campaign in that way then and yet now comes to us asking for a freeze? Is that not inconsistent? Do we not have a right to be cynical before accepting a proposal such as that contained in this matter of public importance without learning more, without finding out answers to some of the questions that we are raising here in this debate today?

Mr Hodgman:

– You are an anti-freezing agent.

Mr HURFORD:

-Incidentally, how many Government supporters are sincere in their support of a measure such as this voluntary freeze? Was not such a freeze proposed by the present Speaker when he led the Liberal Party in the 1974 Federal election campaign? Perhaps that is why he chose for discussion today this matter of public importance rather than mine. But did he not get roundly defeated on the measure in the election and did he not get roundly criticised in his own party room? We just have to look at the newspaper reports following the LiberalNational Country Parties’ first party meeting after the 1974 election, and at some of the reports of what Liberal-National Country Party members had to say about freezes then. I invite the one person who has been sycophantically vocal from the Government benches this afternoon, who was not a member of Parliament then, to go back and learn what some of his more informed colleagues think about freezes and what they are on record as saying about them.

I wonder whether the present Prime Minister spoke out against the Snedden voluntary prices and wages freeze. Of course he eventually got elected to leadership, perhaps on that issue more than any other, only to do another somersault as we witness in this latest announcement. I repeat: Are there not also others among Government back benchers who felt the same way about freezes? Let them speak up now in an honest way about the matter. When the people witness policies which are coherent and unerratic there is some hope for consensus support. But at present there is anything but confidence in this erratic and inept Government. A recent Age poll illustrates the lack of confidence that this Government has engendered. This recent announcement is only the latest in a long line of erratic announcements.

My time is running short. I should love to go through the list of inept Government policies that we have had presented. There has been the slashing of government spending leading to the worst level of unemployment for 40 years. There was the devaluation after the Government had said that it would not devalue. The devaluation has killed to the extent that I have already illustrated the one thing for which the Government was aiming- a reduction in inflation in Australia. There was the Medibank muddle adding 3.2 per cent to that disastrous 6 per cent consumer price index increase in the December quarter alone. There was the forcing of the States to take on more functions and the giving to the States of less funds for those functions, forcing the States into larger amounts of expenditure. All this leads to incoherence which is the mark of this Government’s policies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The matter of public importance proposed today for discussion reads:

The need for active support from all sections of the community to ensure the effectiveness of the prices and wages freeze.

I remind the House of that because of how far away from it we seem to have moved. The Opposition has been claiming that some wrong was done it because it could not bring on a matter of public importance. I point out a contradiction in that. All honourable members will know that the Standing Orders provide that any honourable member may propose a matter of public importance. Where there is more than one the Speaker will choose the one to be dealt with. The Opposition brings on overwhelmingly more matters of public importance. There is no reason why this matter should not be debated in this way today. Is anyone going to tell me that any other matter is more important or urgent? But the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who has just been speaking went further than that. He said that what we really ought to be talking about now is what the Government is going to do. But he proposed a matter of public importance, not on this matter, which he wanted to have precedence.

Mr Hurford:

– It was on this matter.

Mr GARLAND:

– Wait a minute. The honourable member did not want to hear the Government first; he wanted to make a speech first, and he was prepared to have the Government’s statement made after the discussion of his matter of public importance. The honourable member wanted to discuss his matter instead of this one. That is the distinction. Of course the procedure that has been followed has been strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders. We put this matter forward and ask for active support. The honourable member for Adelaide said in his speech that he had some sympathy with the objective of the proposal. But really, 99 per cent of that speech- and I would dare to predict that the same will apply to the speech that is to follow mine- was pointed against it. The honourable member really rubbished the proposal, almost without pause.

The primary fact is that we have 7 leaders of governments in Australia- 6 State Governments and the Commonwealth Government- who for the first time have made a general agreement about the question of prices and incomes restraint. The proposal has been published far and wide. I think people have read the terms of it although a good deal of misrepresentation of those terms has occurred. I invite honourable members and the public to read what the 7 leaders signed, not what honourable members opposite say it might lead to or the details of it. I ask them to read the words and to read what those 7 leaders said because what they said is rather different from the whole plan that honourable members opposite are asking this Governmentnot all of those governments- to throw on the table.

Public support for this proposal of prices and incomes restraint is tremendous. The reason for it is clear: The public and, surely, all of us are fed up with price and wage rises chasing one another- the vicious circle which has been created. But here for the first time we have some large measure of agreement. Surely we should go on and try to enlarge that agreement as far as we can, as part of- and I emphasise the words ‘part of- the anti-inflationary policies. The proposal for restraint needs wider support yet. I would have looked to the members of the Labor Party in this House- I say ‘would have’ because of what we have just heard- and to the unions to give the plan some opportunity to work, not because it will answer every question, but because it will help in dealing with our major problems.

Is there anybody who does not want to reduce inflation, which will thereby lead to a reduction in unemployment and interest rates? Consider the position of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), or any Prime Minister, and any government in having to contend with the different objectives of States- there are six of them- of various employer groups, of various unionsthere are many of them- and of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which has said often that its determinations were not necessarily going to conform with Government policy. It is a tremendous problem for any government, not only this Government, to face. It was a tremendous problem for the previous Labor Government in 1975. In fact towards the end of that Government’s term it did make a few efforts towards dealing with some of the major problems. Perhaps it did not get as far as we would have liked to see. A moment ago, the honourable member for Adelaide suggested that one way out of the problem was to spend more money. I remind him that we really do not have to have a theoretical argument about that because the former Labor Government tried it in 1974 and early 1975 as a means of defeating inflation. All that happened was that we got more inflation and more unemployment. Of course, when the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) became Treasurer, he tried to reverse that trend a little but by that time the position had gone too far.

I come back to the problem of the groups that a prime minister and a government have to deal with. How can anyone achieve anything in this country unless there is a measure of cooperation, unless some of those groups are prepared to co-operate? It is so easy to criticise yet the public wants some restraint. We have had the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), who this day has not made a comment on this matter, say that the plan ought to be given a chance. We have had his Deputy, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), oppose it. We have had the honourable member for Oxley oppose it. We have had the honourable member for Adelaide actually countenance it to some degree but, as I have pointed out, from the tenor of his remarks a moment ago, he mainly opposed it.

This matter of public importance calls for more support. Why should not there be more general support for this proposition, bearing in mind the lack of total power and the many groups that there are? The Commonwealth has already take some action. Honourable members will have seen the statement of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) about the Prices Justification Tribunal and about the approaches which the . Government will make to certain companies whose price rises were imminent but had not been settled. He set out categories. This Government has done things it can to restrain prices. As far as I am aware, all the States have taken measures, certainly in respect of their own charges. I believe in most States that many companies which were about tq make price rises will not make them. The companies have announced that.

Mr Willis:

– What about all the complaints?

Mr GARLAND:

– There have been a number of complaints. I am just explaining that there is a good deal of acceptance of the proposition. One can always point to the people who want to knock any proposal. I am disappointed in the attitude of the Opposition today. It can of course concentrate on these difficulties if it wishes. I believe that in the main the proposition can have a measure of success. What we are calling for today is that it be given the maximum chance. A number of large companies have announced that they will not make price rises. That means that wage earners and salary earners do not have to pay those rises. They received a $5.70 a week increase recently. This is a moment to draw the line. There are some price rises which have been restrained. That is already on the record. One would hope to see more. I remind the House that included in the companies which have announced that they will not increase prices are the major chain stores. That factor must surely be an important item in the budgets of average income families. Surely one is in a position to say that there should be some wage restraint as well.

We heard about the request for a full plan and details. I remind the House of what the Premiers signed. They did not sign such a plan. There has not been an opportunity to go into every detail and to answer all the questions raised at question time today. Anybody can raise such difficulties in a mixed economy. Anybody can raise difficulties where there is a free resources allocation system and where there is a large degree of freedom in a community. A large degree of restraint is called for. For the first time we have an opportunity of keeping people together. I think we should work for a national consensus for restraint on all sides.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-This matter comes before the Parliament at a time when the Government is quite clearly desperate to try to retain some credibility in this country in respect of the continued high rate of inflation. It is quite clear to everyone that the Government has blatantly failed to fulfil its promise to reduce the rate of inflation. At the last national wage case it put forward figures to show that in 1977 the rate of inflation would be a minimum of 11.8 per cent. So we are looking at an inflation rate of about 12 per cent at least in 1977, on the Government’s own figures. That rate of inflation is partly due to the Government’s actions in relation to Medibank and in relation to devaluation. Given the clear fact that the Government has not been able to control inflation, it has snatched at this proposal thrown into the ring at the Premiers Conference by the Premier of Victoria. The Government has tried to make this an instant policy.

Let us look at what was agreed by the 7 heads of government. There was no decision that this would be an instant prices and wages freeze. It was agreed that all heads of government would approach employer and professional organisations and the union bodies with a view to getting voluntary agreement to a 3-month pause and that following the attainment of that agreement there would be an approach to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and to the Prices Justification Tribunal for implementation of the general pause. That was not accepted by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). On the afternoon on which that agreement was made he walked out of the conference and on to the steps at Parliament House and said: ‘The freeze starts now’. That was not in the document. The Prime Minister decided unilaterally that it started immediately. Having decided that, he violated the agreement again by seeking the agreement of the 6 Premiers over the weekend to a request to the Arbitration Commission to postpone the March quarter hearing which begins on 3 May. The Premiers had not agreed to any such proposal. The Labor Premiers at least said that they would not be a part of it.

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that, in the light of the Premiers’ reaction, he would seek the postponement of today’s Arbitration Commission hearing so that the parties could reach an agreement informally. But what has happened? Today before the Arbitration Commission the Government in fact did not do what the Prime Minister said last night it would do.

The Government called for an instant halt to all claims before the Commission, whether heard or part-heard, and said that no further awards should be make by the Commission until there was a decision about whether there would be voluntary agreement to a pause and that if this involved protracted negotiations until 3 May it meant that there would be no start of the case at that time. The Government asked the Commission to rule to that effect. That goes back entirely on what the Prime Minister said to the nation last night on This Day Tonight. What sort of government is this Government? It has totally distorted the agreement that was made last week by the Premiers in a number of ways.

It is also true to say that there are many problems associated with the implementation of a prices and wages freeze. As has been mentioned by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) in relation to prices, there are the problems concerning perishable goods. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) said the day after the 7 heads of government reached their agreement that the prices of perishable goods could not be frozen. Then there is the matter of the farm products whose prices are determined by daily auction. Are those prices to be frozen? The Prime Minister said today that the broad view of the Government is that there will be no exceptions. But how does one provide for that in relation to items that are subject to price determination through auction? Is the statement by the Minister for Primary Industry now no longer valid? What about the price of imported products? Some of the price increases caused by devaluation are probably still to be fed into the economy. What about those products if there is not to be any passing on? Are the importers supposed to carry those price increases or just withhold their goods from the market? The most likely thing is that there will be a passing on of the price increases in that respect. So there will be price movements for that reason.

As has been mentioned by the honourable member for Adelaide, the price of tea, coffee, cocoa and such items is moving up rapidly on the world market. Those price rises must be reflected on the Australian market or the items just will not be for sale. What about the matter of discounts? An easy way not to increase prices on the surface but in fact to increase them is to reduce or eliminate altogether the discounts that were available previously. What is going to be done about that? What about the control of rents? One cannot go to an employer organisation and get an agreement not to increase rents. But without strict rent control it is very hard to see how there can be any control over the matter of rent increases, particularly following a change of tenancy.

Furthermore there is the whole problem of the capacity of the Government to monitor price increases. The fact of the matter is that this Government, in its period in office so far, has been setting about reducing the powers of the Prices Justification Tribunal to monitor prices and reducing its powers to control prices in this country. The Government has made a number of amendments to the Prices Justification Act to restrict this area of activity. The Tribunal’s staff has been reduced. The price surveillance of the retail sector has been abandoned. The whole price surveillance section now amounts to 15 people. Are they to cover the whole of Australia, along with the very small bodies which operate in the States?

The State price monitoring bodies are small and, in most cases, without teeth. They have already received a voluminous number of complaints. The New South Wales Government said today that it has received over 1 100 complaints in the period since Thursday. What an enormous number in just that period of time! The Consumer Affairs Bureau in Victoria says that it has been snowed under by complaints from people in that State about price rises. Is there or is there not a price freeze? We just do not know. The Prime Minister says that there is, but the reality of the situation seems to be that, if anything, prices are going up more rapidly than ever before. There have been numerous price increases. We can hardly regard it as being a state of price freeze.

Similarly there is a number of problems to be overcome in relation to the imposition of a wage freeze. The fact of the matter is that wages have been reduced in real terms by about 5 per cent over the last year. The price-wage freeze does nothing to restore the lost value of wages, and that is of very real concern for the unions. If they agree to a price-wage freeze for 3 months, that does nothing to restore what they have lost over the previous year. Furthermore, a wage freeze now would involve a further reduction in real wages. That is obvious. The March quarter application for an increase which was due to be heard in early May would not be heard until July, so until that period there would be no compensation for increases in prices. It follows that there would be a further reduction in real wages. That is also a matter of considerable concern for unions to consider and a problem in relation to getting their agreement to a wage-price freeze.

Furthermore, near the end of the wage freeze there would be another big price rise, about 4 per cent again on the figures given by the Government at the last national wage case hearing- a 4 per cent increase in the June quarter which would come out in mid-July, which could be just near the end of the freeze period. That 4 per cent is already in the system and nothing can be done about that. Those price increases have mainly come in now because the price increases for the June quarter are the prices which have increased since the middle of February, the figures for a quarter being taken mainly in the middle of the quarter. So the June quarter increases are in the system. They will be big increases. At the end of this period of 3 months freeze on wages there will be another big increase in prices. All this means that there will then have to be a big pay increase at the end of that period if real wages are to be maintained. We would be looking at something like 7 per cent or 8 per cent. On past performance the Commission is highly unlikely to grant anything like that sort of increase. So the wage earners and the unions would again be looking at a further reduction in real wages, particularly as the Government through the Prime Minister this afternoon and at question time is talking about the imposition of transitional arrangements, whatever that might mean and whatever details the Prime Minister might have in mind for them. Also prices are likely to rise anyway despite the supposed freeze, as I mentioned before.

While the Government is seeking the cooperation of the unions it is threatening them with an array of penalties and disabilities such as amendments to the Trade Practices Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the inquiry into trade union training and so on. If the Government wants a wage-price freeze to succeed it would at least need to have a detailed consideration by all the parties of all the problems involved. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has called for a national conference to consider all these matters. That is what should be done. Before there is any further discussion of the matter there ought to be a national conference of all the parties and all the governments so that they can consider the many problems involved and work out whether a price-wage freeze in this country is feasible. The way the scheme is operating at the moment is a shambles. There has been a total distortion by the Prime Minister and the Government of the agreement reached by the 7 heads of government last Wednesday.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

page 924

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BIRNEY:

– Yes. On Sunday last, 17 April, the Sydney Sunday Mirror had placards on the street in Sydney carrying the wording ‘Liberals’ Party Funds Vanish’. The newspaper’s front page, in bold print, carried similar headlines, namely, ‘Liberal Party Funds Vanish- Officials Hunt for $51,000’. Directly above those latter words was a prominent picture of me. On the other side it carried the picture of a seemingly nude but beautiful woman whose facial features bear a striking resemblance to those of my wife. The article falsely stated that the Liberal Party was investigating the disappearance of more than $51,000 from an eastern suburbs election campaign fund. The article went on to say that the purpose of the fund was to support the election of the Party candidate in Phillip, Mr Jack Birney, a Sydney barrister.

The article and the manner in which it is written, and the photographs displayed and their position on the front page, clearly lead to the overwhelming imputation that I was involved in the disappearance of the $51,000. The Liberal Party was not investigating this lying assertion. Indeed, the general secretary of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party, Mr Jim Carlton, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 April last, denied the Sunday newspaper report that money had disappeared from the Party’s election campaign fund for the Phillip electorate. He stated in the article yesterday that the there was no investigation by any Party official, either from Party headquarters or from the local branches. He said that he was satisfied that the story was without foundation.

If the Sunday Mirror had made a check with any responsible office bearer of the Party, either in the area or at Party headquarters or with me personally, it would have been immediately aware that its article was a load of garbage. Since this was not done the motivation of the whole article becomes obvious. I am given to understand that the State executive of the Liberal Party in New South Wales is to consider referring the whole matter to the Press Council. This article, which is clearly defamatory of both my wife and myself, has caused us great mental anguish and embarrassment. It is a typical example of gutter journalism at its worst. I have consulted senior counsel and legal proceedings for libel are in train. No funds have vanished. There has been no misappropriation. The inferences and innuendoes which clearly emerge from this spurious, rotten and miserable article are refuted.

page 924

IMMIGRATION POLICIES AND AUSTRALIA’S POPULATION

Paper and Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 31 March, on the following papers presented by Mr Mackellar:

Immigration Policies and Australia’s Population- Report and Ministerial Statement, 17 March 1977 - and on motion by Mr Staley:

That the House take note of the papers.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-In Australia immigration must surely form a very important part of any Government’s policy. We are a sparse population with little more than 13 million people and we have 3 million square miles in which to locate this small number of people. Some 75 per cent are situated in our seaboard cities of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Launceston and Hobart. It is very important that we supplement our population with immigrants. Our immigration intake over the past few years has diminished considerably. Of course, this is by reason of the economic and unemployment situation at present prevailing in Australia. I have no doubt whatever that when this situation is arrested the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), who is doing an excellent job, and the Government will ensure that increased migration takes place. Of our present population, 40 per cent is represented by people from overseas who have brought with them certain skills. Artisans and such people from overseas have made a great contribution to industry in this country and to its development.

During this discussion much has been said about the Green Paper entitled Immigration Policies and Australia’s Population which was tabled in the House recently by the Minister. It should make a very useful contribution to public understanding of the great problems involved. It is very doubtful whether most people realise the recent population trends and what they are likely to mean unless official action of various kinds is taken. Firstly, the birth rate has already fallen to a level where, in the long term, births will be offset by deaths. This, of course, means zero population growth, about which we have heard so much in various reports from people interested in this field. Secondly, the estimated net immigration rate in the current financial year is little more than 30 000 people, compared with only 21 000 people in 1975-76. Thirdly, in the past 10 years Australia has lost more than onethird of a million people in international movements. This is a very serious situation for this country. Fourthly, in addition to this loss, migrants returning to their homelands have amounted to about 20 per cent of arrivals since 1925. That is a long time ago but the percentage is one about which we should think seriously.

It all adds up to the fact that we face the prospect of an Australia with little or no natural increase in population and only a very small net gain from immigration. Some of the results will be a smaller increase in the labour force, possible labour shortages in the 1980s and the 1990s, smaller numbers of school-age children, and a progressive ageing of the population. Less will have to be spent on education but more on the social security system. We know of the demands being made by educationists in Australia at present for increased funding of education, in both capital grants and in the provision of teaching services.

The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in previous statements in this House has made it clear that there is a numerical decline in what has historically been the mainstay of the labour force, the male worker; and the risk that we shall become increasingly inward looking and a stagnant society. All these possibilities may be accepted with equanimity by some people. They are the zero population growth advocates, those sceptical of economic growth for its own sake, others concerned with conservation and environmental issues and those who fear, quite simply, that the country needs time to digest the postwar influx of immigrants.

There is, however, a great danger in allowing long term considerations to be obscured by our only too real short term difficulties, which include a great number of unemployed. This matter must be looked at in the long term. We have short term problems at the moment. The Green Paper looks at the matter in better perspective. It looks at three possible programssmall, medium and large. The first, which would involve a net loss of 1000 to 2000 workers a year, mostly in professional and skilled occupations, arouses little enthusiasm. The second, medium, with a gross intake of 90 000 to 120 000 a year and a net gain of 50 000, appears to be a good scheme. The third, large, seems to present too many practical difficulties. It is a good Green Paper. It balances long term against short term considerations and draws attention to difficulties which will arise very quickly when economic recovery occurs. It is non-committal on the admittance of refugees. However, this is another matter and must be taken in context with our moral obligation to accept refugees.

Australia’s real population building took place in the post-war period when we embarked on a major immigration program. This saw the arrival in Australia of over 3.3 million new settlers who, together with children born in Australia, have been responsible for approximately half of Australia ‘s post-war growth from 7.4 million to 13.9 million people today. With the passing of time this policy has provided dividends for Australia. Various governments in the post-war period have done much to overcome the inevitable difficulties of adjustment to new environments.

The Minister, in his speech on 17 March this year, said that Australians are a mobile people. At present we have many thousands of our people overseas in various callings, professions and vocations. The Green Paper points out that in the past 10 years Australia has lost over 330 000 persons, quite apart from the losses of former migrants who left Australia to take up permanent residence overseas. Many of these people possessed valuable technical and professional skills. I have some figures with regard to arrivals and departures and the excess of arrivals over departures for 1974, 1975 and 1976. In 1974 there were 121 324 arrivals, 33 751 departures and an excess of arrivals over departures of 87 573. In 1975 to 30 September there were 54 117 arrivals, 29 084 departures with an excess of arrivals over departures of 25 033. For the balance of 1975 there were 39 670 arrivals, 22 224 departures with a net gain of 1 7 446. This is a very serious situation. It reveals a down turn each year. In 1976 there were 38 478 arrivals, 20 22 1 departures with a net gain of 18 257. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the schedules of overseas arrivals and departures for 1974 and 1975 and for the first and second quarters of 1976, the latest figures available to me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

The tables read as follows-

Mr O’KEEFE:

– There are many people in Australia interested in the possibility of migrants coming from Rhodesia. Over the years some have trickled through to this country and have made a great contribution in various fields, particularly agriculture, but Australia is now bound by the United Nations resolution against admitting persons on Rhodesian or other passports where to do so would defeat the purpose of” any United Nations resolution. However, it certainly was not the intention of the United Nations to prevent any Rhodesian from leaving that country. Applicants from there get no special consideration and are seldom able to enter Australia unless on family reunion grounds or because they possess skills which are in short supply here. This is a matter which the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Government should watch carefully.

There is a move to increase the number of refugees entering Australia and details of this are due to be announced shortly in Canberra by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This will take place after many months of investigation and consideration. It is interesting to note that in nearly 2 years 2477 war refugees from Saigon have been admitted to this country, and 4000 refugees have been admitted from Lebanon since the conflict in that country began. Of course, they have been admitted to join relatives in Australia. This to my knowledge and to the Government’s knowledge has been a most successful migration. Finally, I should say that this is a most important matter. As I have said previously, in the short term we have problems with migrants coming to this country because of our situation here, but in the long term we must program for many more migrants to come here to help us develop this country and to hold it.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-As a democratic socialist all my thinking life, to me there are 2 depressing aspects of some who call themselves socialists. The first aspect is the chauvinistic nationalism which often leads to racism and opposition to other countries, not on the basis of their policies but on the basis that they are Americans or Indonesians or Japanese or Russians or Chinese or Arabs or Israelis. Having lived in Europe during the sweeping victories of national socialism in central Europe, I always shudder when I hear otherwise reasonable people add extreme nationalism to their socialism, and that can be expressed by carrying Eureka flags as much as by carrying any other flag. My second antipathy, even more directly related to the topic under discussion, is to those who can wax lyrical about preserving trees and beaches and species of animals but who have utter contempt and even hatred for people. As one reads the handouts from the Nil Net Migration people, any socialist ought to be shocked, yet they work under the cover of the Australian Conservation Foundation and can receive tax free gifts. That is quite wrong. They share Enoch Powell ‘s views, and they are entitled to do so, but I do not want taxpayers to subsidise them.

May I deal very quickly with some of the pretentious nonsense often regurgitated by all sides in the immigration debate. The reference to factory fodder is used by anti-immigration people and is supposed to end all discussion. Of course, the Broken Hill Company, General MotorsHolden’s, the Ford Motor Company and others supported immigration on the basis of obtaining unskilled labour as well as consumers. That cannot be a surprise to anybody. It is up to the unions and Labor governments to obtain the best possible conditions for workers, whether migrant or not; but that does not mean that the migrant workers, both male and female, would prefer not to come to this country rather than work in often unpleasant jobs. It should be made clear to potential migrants what the position is, what jobs are available, what the conditions are, how difficult it is to get suitable accommodation, and so on. Where governments have failed is in painting Australia as a land of middle class, happy, bronzed surfers and footballers. Let us tell people overseas what it is really like, how expensive it is to live here, about the droughts and the floods and the bushfires, the tax rates and the high cost of health insurance. Having told them that, let us not pretend paternalistically that we are keeping them out for their own sake. We are keeping them out for very selfish reasons.

I should like to deal very quickly with diagram 1 on page 1 1 and diagram 3 on page 1 6 of the Green Paper. Those diagrams show clearly that during 1976 the Australian labour force increased by about 105 000 people. Yet those working increased by only about 300 during 1976 and those registered for employment increased by only a few thousand. That indicated that our unemployment figures are grossly under- estimated. Something approaching 90 000 people have been forced to withdraw from the labour force. So much for the alleged success of the Government’s economic policy as illustrated in this Green Paper.

I should now like to refer to my submission to the National Population Inquiry which was conducted about 6 years ago. I have done so before but I still stick to the points I made then and I should like to reiterate some of them. Whilst most thinking people must obviously support zero population growth or even minus population growth for the globe’s population, this does not necessarily mean the same for Australia. Many of the ZPG arguments in Australia rest much more on value judgments about what makes for a tolerable life style than on what I would call pseudo-scientific predictions. To my mind growth- economic and population- tends to threaten traditional middle class values. It is felt to be disruptive and unpleasant precisely because it turns minority privileges into majority ones, because it means crowded roads, crowded beaches and fishing spots.

It has overtones of a strong historical anxiety about being overwhelmed by Asia’s population. The local ZPG movement collects the Asianhorde worriers. Recruitment in the schools is spreading, with ecological politics receiving an uncritical embrace- not given to any other political movement- probably because of the combination of scientific jargon and doomsday religion. There is the theme of apocalyptic catastrophethe threat of doom to come and the theme of millenial hope with the promise of human perfectability, zero population growth plus a repudiation of worldly goods. Everything would be all right then. We have the combination of complete pessimism that scientific technology could not be the saviour, with a completely unjustified optimistic faith in social technology. There is the assumption that mankind would carry out the social revolution demanded, that underdeveloped nations would not aim to reach our levels and that those in our society who already consider themselves close to subsistence level would join with the affluent in reducing their consumption.

Basically they- the ZPG and zero economic growth advocates- make one of two alternative sets of assumptions: Firstly that, broadly speaking, the global distribution of income will remain in the future as it is now or secondly, that there will be a voluntary massive redistribution of income from the rich nations to the poor. Both seem very unrealistic. The advocates of global equilibrium throw up their hands in horror at the assumption that what they consider such minor political problems as the distribution of income among countries or within individual societies cannot be overcome under the threat of catastrophe. Suddenly it appears that although the technologists and scientists, according to those people, cannot solve the problems of increasing food yields by recycling raw materials or stopping pollution, politicians can square the circle and do the impossible by reconciling everyone to the social and economic consequences of global equilibrium. This, of course, is a nonsense assumption.

I am combining my criticism of ZPG with an attack on the exponents of ‘no more economic growth’, as the ecological doomsday approach of, say, ‘the limits to growth’ by the Club of Rome is often their main argument. Recently they attacked the optimistic futurology of Herman Kahn and the Hudson Institute by saying that it is being sponsored by General MotorsHolden’s Pty Ltd, ignoring that the Club of Rome is sponsored by Fiat and by Volkswagen. Just as growth was once seen as the magic formula, so now non-growth replaces it; one oversimplification takes over from another in a depressing dialectic of slogans. The emphasis on repudiating worldly goods is, of course, drawing on a very deep well of Western tradition. And the final irony is perhaps that what is basically a religious impulse now feels obliged to reinforce itself with scientific predictions from a computer, the 20th century version of the apocalyptic vision. But in the past the choice was seen as a personal one. It was the individual who chose to join a mendicant order of friars or give part of his income to the poor. Now, however, the choice is presented as a communal one. It is society as a whole which is expected to take a pledge of voluntary poverty, or more accurately, to abstain from enriching itself still further. And the sanction is not the traditional one of retribution in the next life but ecological catastrophe in this one; present affluence and future squalor, the contemporary version of visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons.

In dealing with the Australian position I would then argue that there is no absolute optimum figure for future population. It is a question of whether, for idealistic of materialistic reasons, we should allow to come here people who are convinced that for material or political reasons they would be much better off. Most would agree that refugees should be accepted. The admission of others should, to my mind, only be limited by, firstly, the active desire of people to come here, with no positive propaganda on our pan and, secondly, our ability to provide them with jobs, accommodation and services. I have a gut feeling that we are not entitled to deny a migrant entry if he feels that it is in his interest, unless we have a precise reason for doing so. On the question of the origin of migrants, I submit that many of those who claim that non-Europeans should be admitted are just as racially prejudiced as those they criticise. Their argument often goes: Why should we not admit, for example, a doctor from Hong Kong, an Asian English-speaking professional when we admit illiterate peasants from the Mediterranean area? I emphasise the words Mediterranean area’ and ‘illiterate ‘. Why do not those people compare such a migrant with the Dutch peasant, an Irish farmer or an English farmer? They are being just as racist as the people they criticise.

My view on the best possible size for Australia’s population is that there is no simple answer. Over-simplification would only produce an answer unfit as a guide for action. I would also like to criticise more specifically some of the opponents of immigration. They are basically the same people who opposed immigration ever since it became fashionable to do so. A Mr Sharp in Sydney was one of the leaders of that group. I suppose that ever since large scale immigration started its opponents have argued that in periods of full employment the cost of basic services required for migrants- the so-called build-up of a social infrastructure- was so great as to use up our very limited resources. We were told that we could not afford to let migrants come into Australia because too many of our people were working just to provide the infrastructure. We were told also that Australia could not expand at the rate it ought to be able to expand because we were bringing in too many migrants and that the infrastructure cost and the labour cost were too great. Such people in most cases are still opponents of the immigration and now argue the opposite, namely, that immigration will cause unemployment. I do not know the correct answer but both arguments cannot be true.

Mr Wilson from the University of Sydney Economics Department was appointed during the period of the McMahon Government, I think, to prepare an economic cost benefit analysis on this subject. It is a pity that that cost benefit analysis has not been published. It is obvious that it is a very difficult cost benefit analysis but I wish that we would at least get a paper on it so that we could argue the pros and cons involved instead of just accepting the proposition that migrams coming into Australia cause unemployment. Let me summarise my position as far as migrants are concerned. I was a migrant. I do not think we should chase migrants to come to Australia. That is where I disagree with the Minister when he goes overseas. We should be more reasonable and lenient in admitting those who want to come to this country. It has often been my argument that it is ridiculous for us to sponsor film showing happy Australians lying on the beaches and sunbaking, yachting and doing all sorts of things, and spreading that image overseas, giving people a false impression of what the average person should expect when coming to Australia. Why not show people the unpleasant things about life in Australia? If they are still prepared to come after seeing the unpleasant things, probably they would make better migrants. Certainly, they would not be disappointed and there would be less reason for them to go home. The cost to us when they finally leave Australia would therefore be less.

Let me conclude by appealing to my fellow members of the Labor movement not to forget that worthwhile socialism is an international movement. Wherever it has become highly nationalistic, it has become authoritarian and, therefore, to me the very antithesis of socialism. Similarly, if socialism is about anything, it is about people as individuals and we must always consider them as being more important than trees or private profit.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

-At the outset I must say that I support many of the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). This will become obvious during the course of my remarks. Before discussing immigration policies, I would first like to address myself to the findings of the first report of the National Population Inquiry. The Population Inquiry highlights some quite startling facts which I believe must provide the basis for future government planning, not only in immigration but in almost all areas of government policy. The important facts are, firstly, that after a generation of consistently high population growth rates, a marked downturn in the rate of growth of Australia’s population has recently occurred and is likely to continue. We are told that basically this is due to a declining fertility rate and that it is a trend in keeping with what has been experienced in almost all industrial societies.

The second fact which is related to this trend is that within a generation from the onset of a unity net reproduction rate, population growth rates will have been reduced by at least 50 per cent and the momentum of growth will be receding rapidly towards a non-growth situation. There are many other significant findings from the report but time does not permit them to be spelt out in full. The most important demographic influence at the moment is the declining fertility rate in Australia and this point requires further examination.

It is clear from the Borrie report that fertility rates will play a dominating role in determining Australia’s population in the years ahead although, as with mortality rates, governments have limited influence in this area. The problem for the demographers is to predict whether or not the present decline in fertility is temporary. On the one hand it could be clearly stated that from the point of view of child-bearing current patterns of marriage are extremely favourable to a higher level of fertility. It could be suggested that the recent decline is only temporary as women have delayed their child-bearing because of short term economic circumstances. Much of the decline in births since 1971 is due to women in their 20s having fewer children than women of a similar age did in the 1 960s. Assuming these are only temporary delays, many of these marriages and delayed births may be made up for later in the lives of these women. If this is the case, one should think very carefully before accepting the necessity for high immigration rates.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the present decline in fertility is longer term and is due to fundamental social changes which are not likely to be reversed in the foreseeable future. Of course, this has strong implications for future immigration programs. A number of factors lead me to this conclusion. I think it could be argued that these present developments might indicate a trend towards smaller family size. The pattern of later marriage and delay in having the first child is now well-established in the United States. This may be due to the fact that there is now greater female access to higher education and to the job market. This in turn has increased the opportunity costs or earnings forgone in having children.

I would argue that factors such as these, together with the so-called new identity for women which is espoused by the feminist movements, together with the increasing temptations of increased affluence, are all of a long term nature. As a result and in the absence of any immigration program a continued decline in fertility rates in my opinion will lead us not only to zero population growth but even further to negative rates of population growth in the future. In these circumstances, Australia’s governments in future will have to look increasingly to immigration programs to maintain reasonable rates of population growth.

Having said that, I do think that government has a responsibility to try to do something about the rate of natural growth. The present declining fertility rate, in my view, threatens the very existence of the family unit and therefore the stability of our society. Surely governments can create a framework- economically and sociallywhereby it is more attractive for a couple to have a reasonable sized family. My colleague, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) referred to this matter earlier in the debate. If one compares the various income alternatives of a man working on average award rates, a woman working on average award rates and a couple with one income and the benefits and rebates accruing to their family of, say, two, three or four children, there is no doubt that the family group is disadvantaged in relation to the others.

I think governments have a responsibility to provide a framework within which the decision by a woman to stay home and raise a family should be encouraged and not discouraged. At the present time the woman who undertakes this task- the most important job imaginable in my opinion- is penalised compared with the wife who chooses to work. Also she is much maligned by women’s activist groups who can see no merit in the role of the woman who stays at home to raise and care for her children. Rather, they believe that the woman with the pay packet is the liberated woman. The logic of that argument completely escapes me. Obviously, to create a framework which does away with the disincentives to raise a family will be very costly and will take a long time. I am not saying that the mother and housewife should be paid. What I am trying to say is that she should not be discriminated against when compared with the woman who chooses not to have a family but would rather work.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comment by the honourable member for Lilley that immigration should be seen as a very valuable addition to the Australian population but not as a substitute for it. Given that any initiatives to redress that imbalance would take a long while to implement, quite clearly there will be a case for a much higher immigration intake in the years to come. In saying this I am automatically rejecting the arguments put forward by the protagonists of zero population growth. I support many of the remarks of the honourable member for Prospect in this regard.

I will not have time to debate the economic costs and benefits of population growth, although I do have strong views on this subject. But there is no question in my mind that, on balance, in a country richly endowed with natural resources and where, in the long term, there is a relative shortage of human capital, an increasing population, to a point, is essential to provide increasing living standards. But I prefer to argue the case for population growth on grounds of morality, because little emphasis has been placed on this aspect by speakers in this debate so far. Of course, what I am putting is purely a personal view. I find something quite repulsive about the arguments put forward by the protagonists of zero population growth. They seem to suggest that notwithstanding our place in a region of the world which is characterised by poor and developing nations which have the highest rates of population growth and the lowest per capita incomes in the world, Australia should reserve the enjoyment of the resources of this continent- one of the richest in the worldfor the smallest possible number of people. They seem to forget that the capacity to increase living standards in Australia, the capacity to aid our poorer neighbours and the capacity to provide the security to enjoy these living standards in peace, requires an increase in the administrative and productive manpower of the nation.

The proponents of zero population growth also seem to forget that we have a moral and humanitarian obligation to increase our capacity to utilise our resources to help to provide for the needs of the poorer countries of the world. They forget the impact of external pressures on such a richly endowed country as Australia. These pressures include the demand for our natural resources by these countries and our capacity to produce food surpluses for the vast, over populated and poorer nations of Asia. They forget the rising and quite proper expectations and demands of the Third World and our obligations to refugees from this region, particularly our obligation to refugees from Indo China. These are not only our humanitarian obligations. In the area of foreign policy and defence they constitute a very pragmatic approach to our future needs.

Therefore, in view of the predicted decline in the rate of natural growth to Australia’s population, on balance I support the view that higher immigration rates are required for the future. But I must express some qualifications in this regard. First, we need to consider such an immigration program in terms of Australia’s economic structure. I would emphasise that we would not be doing justice to ourselves or to our poorer neighbours if such an intake was to be used to promote the growth of industries which require continuous high tariff protection rather than those which are internationally competitive. If the immigration intake is undertaken together with some restructuring of domestic industries in order to allow the laws of comparative advantage to take effect, such a program is well justified and is in the best interests of both Australia and our trading partners in the region.

The second qualification I have relates to the rate of increase in the immigration intake. We should not simply be talking about desirable levels of population; we should be very concerned about the rate of change of our population. Little work has been done with regard to assessing Australia’s ability to absorb certain rates of immigrant intakes. If migration rates are too high we might be creating adverse social pressures within Australian society. This is a matter to which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, referred earlier in this debate. We should all be aware, when determining priorities in this area, of some of the findings of the poverty inquiry. That inquiry indicated that 12.3 per cent of recent immigrant income units- those arriving since 1 966- were found to be in poverty as compared with 6.7 per cent of all adult income units. Other surveys have revealed that 28 per cent of immigrant children in Victorian schools could be classified as ‘functionally illiterate in the English language’. I could quote other statistics. But these are factors which must be considered when assessing an appropriate rate of intake.

I would also agree with the Borrie report which suggested that the concept of a long-term constant average intake is unsatisfactory. Immigration levels should be sufficiently flexible to take account of Australia’s short term domestic economic problems, our manpower needs and our changing capacity to absorb immigrants after giving full examination to the social consequences of large, constant intakes. But having made those qualifications, on balance and for the reasons I have already stated, I would support the need for a substantial immigration program for Australia for the foreseeable future. I would support it also because of the changing age structure of our population as predicted in the Borrie report. One of the main functions of Australia ‘s immigration program in the past has been to increase the labour force. It is anticipated that the rate of entry to the work force over the next 15 years will clearly be much less than it has been in the past. If this was allowed to eventuate, surely the economic consequences would be adverse to say the least. Also, in the absence of immigration, coupled with declining fertility rates, Australia will become an ageing nation and it is suggested that within, say, one generation the total proportion of the population dependent on those of working age will increase. How would this increase the living standards and quality of life of all Australians? If we are to have no population increase we would adversely affect these aspirations because we would transfer resources away from education, investment and productive processes to services both government and private for an increasing population of retired persons.

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

Mr McLEAN:

– I have only a short time remaining to me. Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the need for Australia to increase its rate of immigration over the longer term primarily because we had a humanitarian obligation to the poorer nations to develop our richly endowed country for their benefit and also for our longer term benefit. Notwithstanding the arguments I have advanced for increasing our immigration program over the longer term, I submit that this Government and all future Australian Governments have an obligation to ensure that we amend the present social and economic structure of Australia so that those women who wish to raise a family are no longer penalised or discriminated against as compared with the typical 2-income families. This situation has evolved passively and was not deliberately conceived by any government. Nevertheless the situation does exist in Australia. I suggest that any debate on Australia’s population policies in the future should give due consideration to this fact. In concluding my remarks I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) for the way in which he has handled his portfolio in the past. In particular I congratulate him for bringing this Green Paper before the House forks consideration.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (8. 1 )- I think it is true to say that members of this Parliament and the Australian public are not as interested in population trends of our country as they should be at present. I believe that our economic problems, such as the price and wage freeze, our record unemployment and inflation, have taken our minds off our population trends. I think we should be aware that just because population trends are out of our minds they do not cease to exist or to be of importance. The Green Paper on immigration policies and Australia’s population should remind us all that we should be taking more notice of population trends. It should remind us that other matters besides our economic health are important to our welfare and can be forgotten only at our own peril.

The preface of this Green Paper on immigration policies and Australia’s population indicates that the size, composition and distribution of our population will have a major influence on the nature of our future society. It will also have a major influence on our capacity to achieve our personal and national objectives. If we close our minds and eyes to the problems of the pressing necessity of a large part of the undeveloped world- much of it a starving world- we will no doubt shelve our immigration problem with probably the excuse that because we have a high percentage of unemployed we cannot allow more migrants to enter the country. Certainly consideration should be given to the large number of unemployed. But if we make a decision only out of concern for this tragic situation, although it may be a popular decision it could be of lasting disadvantage to this country. As a result of my visits overseas as a delegate to the Inter-Parliamentary Union and after discussions with delegates from all the parliaments of the world, I would say that internationally Australia continues to be recognised as a nation of great wealth and a nation of great potential. In the eyes of over-populated countries it is seen as a nation with a potential to support many more millions of people. I believe that the vast majority of Australians believe that Australia has great promise and potential. In discussions with overseas visitors they point out the vastness of this country and its national advantages.

It seems to be a traditional belief that Australia will expand and prosper. Strangely enough, there also seems to be a belief that our population will increase naturally. This is an odd belief because reports on the subject tend to make the opposite forecast. I believe that it would be a shock to most people to read the first report of the National Populaton Inquiry which projected a population by the year 2001 of 15.9 million people. That is at the present rate of immigration intake. If we consider this in conjunction with our present population of 13.6 million, which is one hundredth of the world’s population of 4000 million, and the fact that we live in an area comparable with that of the United States of America which has a population of 216 million, we can get some idea of why it is hard to convince developing nations that we are doing all we should be doing to assist them out of their present tragic circumstances. I do not say that that is the only consideration that should be taken into account when we are looking at altering our immigration intake. It seems to me that speakers from both sides of the House do not appear to be advocating an all-out immigration policy. That would take us outside the living standard that our resources can provide. I do not advocate this policy. In any case, I believe that it should not be necessary to do so because the report of the National Population Inquiry concluded that resources are not likely to impose a ceiling upon the population that could be carried by this country.

I believe that we must be aware of the large numbers of Australians who are opposed to recruitment of migrants to meet labour or skilled worker shortages in certain areas. There is no doubt that this fear comes from the knowledge that Australia already has a large number of unemployed. Many workers see migrants as a threat to job opportunities, either to themselves or to members of their families. I believe that we can say that this fear is understandable when 346 668 Australians are out of work. Of course we should give some assurances to Australians on this matter. We should make it known that we reject the proposition that immigration can be used to solve economic difficulties or that it should provide an underpinning of unskilled labour to be hired or fired at the whim of an industry, whether in a time of full employment or in a time of high unemployment. However, in conjunction with proper training schemes for our present Australian population, I believe that immigrants with special skills and employment prospects should be given special consideration. In accordance with these principles, a moderate level of immigration should be proposed with special consideration given to parents and dependants of former settlers. Persons with special skills and employment prospects should be given encouragement. Political refugees also should be given special consideration. This has already been touched on by previous speakers. There should be no discrimination on the grounds of race, nationality, politics, sex or creed.

Additional to this, to prove that this has been done with good intent and not to find a way out of some bad previous planning, existing and prospective shortages of skills should be overcome by wider opportunities for training and improved forward planning to assess future needs. Training should be offered to unskilled adults including former settlers, bearing in mind that unskilled workers are likely to face increasing difficulties in securing employment, whether they are old or new Australians. It should be remembered that throughout the post-war period serious shortfalls in various skills occurred, even in times of high unemployment. I believed that the Regional Employment Development schemes were a good example of this. In many areas where RED schemes were invoked various shire officials informed me that they would have employed a larger number of unskilled workers if they had the skilled workers to do the specialised parts of the projects.

I notice that on page 8 of the Green Paper it states that the shortage of skilled workers is likely to continue due to the small number of apprenticeships and the future demand for particular skills and the locations where they will be needed. The nature and extent of future manpower demands are difficult to predict. We have had instances of past over-supply of some skills and serious shortages of others. It is often pointed out that this will occur in the mining industry where there is a likelihood of another mining boom. There will be a big shortage of skilled miners. It must be admitted that apprenticeships do a lot to solve many of these problems. But unfortunately regardless of which government is in power there is a big wastage of trained apprentices. They often finish their times and serve 12 months and go into some other kind of occupation. That is regrettable because it is often the brightest boys who get apprenticeships and there is not a great deal that anyone can do about that.

The distribution of population in Australia is as important as its total size and rate of growth. Major country towns and smaller capital cities can cope with growth better than can the large cities of Sydney and Melbourne. This is both in respect of economic costs and social wellbeing. Immigrants have tended to locate in the inner city areas of our larger cities, where amenities are already overstretched. I believe that special encouragement should be given to migrants to take up residence in country towns and the smaller capital cities. Support should be given to regional growth centres so as to widen employment and residential choice and to reduce the pressures in the existing major urban conglomerations. We should aim to ensure economic and social justice for all members of the community, whatever their origins, to eliminate inequalities of opportunities between social groups and to protect and enhance the physical environment. Short term expediency should not be allowed to imperil the quality of life of future generations. Our immigration policy should always be balanced with these considerations.

Understanding of population dynamics is essential for sound planning of every aspect of the economy. People are the primary concern and their needs and desires should be paramount. We should demonstrate our sincerity in this regard to both the immigrant and the older Australian citizen. The rate of growth of Australia’s population is in large part determined by the age structure and social values of the community. We should recognise that governments are not able, nor should they be willing, to influence greatly the natural increase. This is the right of the people themselves.

Immigration is the second major component of population growth and it is here that the rate of growth should be regulated to allow the maximum welfare of the present community and those who make their homes here. The rate of population growth will always be subject to fluctuations and despite efforts towards a stable pattern, it will continue to fluctuate. Other speakers have claimed that immigration cannot be turned on and off but it seems to me that the facts of life would indicate that we cannot leave the gates wide open irrespective of how much we would like to admit people from the developing countries. By the same token, it would be totally wrong for us to slam the gates closed. I believe that the Government must ensure that its economic and social policies are sufficiently flexible to allow for these fluctuations. We should recognise the valuable contribution being made by migrants to Australia’s economic growth, prosperity and culture. We should support an immigration policy administered with -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on the Green Paper on immigration policies and Australia’s population. The debate and much of the discussion is looking ahead not to next year, not even to the next decade, but to the next century because the policies that we implement with regard to Australia’s immigration program and, putting it in a wider context, with regard to Australia’s population, will determine the manner of the future development of this country. At.the outset, I want to stress that I think Australia needs increasingly to see its immigration policy as a part of its population policy. If we put it in this context, we have to ask ourselves what we believe should be the future population levels of Australia. We must recognise that the fertility levels have declined and that the death rate has been stabilised and that those 2 influences are not likely to have a big impact on our future population. As a result, the major influence on Australia’s population will be our immigration policies.

There are some who would advocate a lifeboat Australia policy. They see Australia as a lifeboat sailing in the world sea, which should determine its population policies ignoring the situation in the rest of the world. I do not believe that we can pursue such a policy for an indefinite period into the future. I think it is necessary that we should put our population policies in a world perspective. When we do this I think we inevitably come to the conclusion that in this country we must have a migration program which is consistent with the population we have here, but which recognises the desires and needs of people from other parts of the world to come and settle in this country as many millions of people have done in the last quarter of a century. So when we read in the Green Paper that a series of immigration options have been put forward, I think that we should rephrase the term ‘immigration options’ and refer to ‘population options ‘.

A point I want to make at this stage is that over the past few years we have looked at immigration programs upon the basis of the number of new settler arrivals and we have said that there will be 100 000 new settlers coming to Australia in a particular year. That program has been of the order of 50 000 new settler arrivals in the year before last and 70 000 new settler arrivals in the current year. Some people thoughout the nation believe that our population is being increased by that number of people. They have the impression that the percentage of new settler arrivals who seek employment are net additions to the work force. Nothing is further from the truth. The fact is that the settler arrival figures give a totally false impression of our current immigration program.

The more significant figure is the net migration figure, that is, the gross settler arrivals- the total number of people who come here to settle and live permanently- less those former settlers and former permanent Australian residents who choose to move overseas permanently. The year before last, taking account of those figures, Australia suffered a net population loss of 5000 or thereabouts in terms of net migration. With a program of 70 000 settler arrivals we still have a net population gain only of the order of 1 5 000 to 20 000. 1 believe that the time has come when the whole basis upon which the migration program is presented to this Parliament should be a presentation in aggregate terms, that is, one that takes account of the new settler arrivals less the permanent departures. In other words, the program should be presented in net migration terms- the gain to population as a consequence of the net migration movements of those who come to this country and those who leave it permanently. I was pleased to see attention drawn to this aspect in the Green Paper, in these terms:

Net migration, rather than gross settler arrivals, is used in measuring population growth due to immigration, as it takes account of departures from Australia. The gross settler arrival figure represents only the number who arrive for settlement in a given period. If immigration was stopped, population growth in Australia would be determined by natural increase (i.e. excess of births over deaths) less the number of persons leaving for residence abroad. It is difficult to forecast the magnitude of the possible departures should this situation arise.

So I believe that we would be deluding ourselves if we were to think in terms of migration just on the basis of the total number of settler arrivals without taking account of the permanent departures from this country. When we turn to look at the options available to the country as suggested in the Green Paper- a small program, which would involve a gross migrant intake of 30 000 to 50 000 people; a medium program with a gross migrant intake of 90 000 to 120 000 people; and a large program with a gross migrant intake of 170 000 to 200 000 people-I believe that we should be going for the option of either the medium program or the large program in the knowledge that in the case of the medium program the net population gain through migration would be 50 000 new settlers and that in the case of the large program the net population gain would be 100 000 new settlers. There have been many years in the past when Australia has been able to accommodate that number of new settler arrivals and to absorb them.

There is a significant difference in the results of these 3 options. In the first case, if we follow that program we must have a very restricted program of family reunions. In the medium option we can have a wider family reunion policy and, in the third, we can have a very generous family reunion policy. I am concerned that our family reunion program is far too restrictive. In many of the source countries from which our migrants have come the family means not merely a dependent parent or a dependent child but brothers and sisters and their families. Those communities depend very much upon the extended family, and when they want to nominate members of their family they should not be prevented from doing so. The only way in which we can assist them in having family reunions as they understand them is to expand the migration program so that, in net terms, we are receiving something of the order of 50 000 to 70 000 migrants-a total settler intake of 100 000 to 120 000 people. In this way there could be many more family reunions.

I urge the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) when he looks at this question to recognise that family reunion is based upon humanitarian grounds. If a young man has a fiancee back in his country of origin he should be allowed to bring her out here so that they can marry. If his parents are back in his country of origin, likewise they should be able to join their son and possibly their grandchildren in this country. The humanitarian ground is clear. In the case of people who wish to marry perhaps the numbers to some extent are self-regulatory because many of the people who have come here in the past have come here as family units. But I know that many applications are made by Australian settlers who wish to bring brothers and sisters to this country, who can provide them with employment and accommodation, yet they are not permitted to come.

I think that the whole question of brother and sister nomination schemes should be reviewed and that ali ethnic communities should be allowed to nominate the same number in every 1000 of their population in this country to come out as migrants. I do not believe that one community because it has put in a large number of applications should be favoured over another community that has put in a smaller number of nominations but which has a much larger community here in this country. The report contains some very interesting figures. I draw the Minister’s attention to them and ask him when reviewing the family reunion program to have a far more relaxed policy with regard to the brother and sister and more distant relative situation to enable those communities which have large numbers of people in this country to have the same rate per 1000 of nominations as some of the other communities which have lodged a larger number of applications.

I now want to raise one question that is often brought forward in this debate. I have received some correspondence in recent weeks because of the publicity received when I asked the Minister a question concerning the migration target. The matter I want to raise is the effect of migration on employment. The Green Paper says this:

A worry in the past 3 years has been the connection between migration and unemployment in Australia. Yet there is a certain illogical position for those vehement critics of immigration who see the stimulatory effects of immigration during inflation but fail to admit the potential for recovery from recession in the same source.

I am one who believes that, on balance, migrants create employment not only for those migrants who seek a job when they arrive here but also for unemployed settlers who are already in this country. Certainly large fluctuations in the migration program are likely to cause a loss of confidence and a loss of employment opportunities, and to expand unemployment whereas a stable or an increasing migration program will have a stimulatory effect and will create more job opportunities than the migrants themselves will seek.

Finally I draw the attention of the House, and particularly of the Minister, to the importance of seeing migration in terms of Australia’s population policy. I think the time may have come when we should again look at the title of the portfolio which the Minister now holds. In recent times it was changed from Immigration to Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I believe that consideration should be given to changing the title to Minister for Population, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to draw attention to the significance of migration in terms of Australia’s total population program. Unless there is someone with responsibility for population development within this country all the impacts of changing rates of population expansion will tend to be ignored as a consequence of no one having prime responsibility for this area.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) was peculiarly lucid for a member of the Liberal Party, I thought, in some of the things he had to say tonight. I am one who does not know for sure whether sheer numbers are important. I do not think we can show that a very big population produces a more desirable society than does a smaller one. We cannot show the reverse, either. Around the world there are very complex and numerous societies in which people live the good life, but there are very numerous and complex societies in which they do not. I do not think we can show that an increasing area of immigration will create more unemployment. I do not know that we can show that it will not either. But at the moment I am not inclined to come down on the side of those people who say that we ought to reduce immigration simply on the grounds that it increases competition for jobs, though probably not on very good logical grounds. I think that in a contracting society we will find much greater economic difficulties than in an expanding society. I do not know that we have done enough scientific work on this matter.

I belong to an area in which there is a very large migrant population. It has a very large working class population and is a large industrial area. I sympathise with those who are out of work and who see another couple of aeroplanes arriving with more people who will apparently compete for jobs. I think that is a reasonable assumption on their part in the short term. I do not think we can say that in the long term we will continue to absorb all the employable people in Australia simply by fulfilling the needs of the expanding population. But I think in the short term we can make out a strong case for that. I hope that we will get around to a more rational approach to the subject. I have lived through a number of economic recessions. There was a very serious one in the 1930s. I think that in some ways a more psychologically damaging recession is occurring at this moment, not because it is more serious than the recession in the 1930s in its effect upon people but because it has arrived after a long period during which people have become accustomed to security, full employment and all the rest of it.

I welcome this debate tonight in the hope that people will continue to look at the subject of migration in its constructive aspects and learn from the last 30 years the lessons we should apply to a continuing flow of immigration. I think the migration program of the last 30 years has made an immense contribution to Australia. We are all migrants. Only a handful of people have had generations in this country stretching back over a century. In effect, we are all the direct descendants of migrant stock. Of course, some of the results of the migration program have had a enormous impact upon Australia. The program has increased our numbers. Perhaps Australia is a more significant country with 14 million people than it was with 7 million people. I think it is. In a way immigration produces a different kind of Australia for us all to live in. So numbers have added to the capacity of people to enjoy this continent by being able to meet the overheads and share the overheads with more people. The greatest thing that the migration program has brought to this country is a diversity of its society. I recommend to honourable members who want to improve their education that next time they are passing through Melbourne they drive down Sydney Road.

Mr Martyr:

– That is where the Sarah Sands Hotel is.

Mr BRYANT:

-Yes. Sydney Road is the business end of the Hume Highway. It runs for three or four miles through my electorate. The diversity there is something to which Australians in that area have become accustomed, but it is still fairly strange to most people outside the inner suburbs of Melbourne and to people in Sydney in particular. There one sees shops with signs in Arabic, Turkish, Yugoslav, Greek and Italian. In some areas there may be more signs in Greek and Italian than in English. Out of all that has grown a diverse society which has strengthened the society in which we live, and for all of us it has widened Australia’s horizons. It has made Australia a different country in which to live. It has changed the basis upon which our families have been built. My family came originally from the British Isles, mostly from Scotland. One little 25 per cent came from England, but we have been able to absorb that fairly satisfactorily. My son is married to a girl whose parents are Greek and who was born in Egypt. We are pleased, happy and proud to have that girl as a member of our family. I look at her family as a fair example of the battle of people such as they in this country. They have taken great steps towards trying to be part of the Australian scene, difficult as it is for middle aged people who have to learn a new language and face many other problems.

So to that extent Australia can be grateful for the creators and sponsors of the migration scheme. We can be even more grateful to those people who had the courage to pick themselves up and to be transported 10 000 or 12 000 miles across the world to a totally strange environment. Our parents and grandparents who came from the British Isles in the last century must have undertaken a pretty rigorous exercise, but at least they were coming to a country in which the society was basically the same as the one they had left, where the language was the same, where the social mores were the same, where the general nuances of society, political, economical, social were the same. However, for people from Yugoslavia, Turkey, Greece and even Italy it was a very strange society into which they were emptied when they arrived. On the whole, Australians accommodated themselves pretty well to the very large number of people who came into their midst. The suburbs of Brunswick and Coburg, for which I became the representative in 1955, had a small proportion of migrants. Schools had a handful of migrants. When I say a handful I mean that in a class of forty there might have been 10 migrant children. Gradually, particularly in the first eight or ten years, the whole social environment changed. Schools with 300 or 400 children saw their populations grow to 500 or 600, with 400 of the pupils perhaps coming from anywhere but the British Isles or from Anglo-Saxon stock. Therefore, their English was meagre to almost nil.

Despite all the things that are said about Australian society, the way in which the community accepted that absorption pleases me. I have been pretty close to the community in all the years in which I have represented it. The people whom I represent are a most uninhibited group when it comes to telling you their opinions of yourself, your policies and the government, particularly this Government. Yet in that time I do not think anybody has come to my office or approached me personally and said: ‘When are you going to stop these migrants coming here?’ I think that is a fair reflection of an open and fairly accommodating society. Schools that were peaceful, well organised community groups 20 years ago suddenly became crowded with the people of diverse languages. The school committees tried to accommodate themselves to it. I know that there are tensions everywhere. That people call one another undesirable names, that children perhaps have scraps in the schoolyard. These things used to happen among ordinary Australian children in my young days and I doubt that it has changed all that much. However, compared with the tensions in the rest of the world there are very few real tensions of this sort in Australia. I sense though that with rising unemployment and increasing economic troubles these tensions are likely to grow. That is one of our achievements. Another is that we have managed to maintain full employment over most of this period.

Another achievement of the Australian society is that we now offer a certain equality to the migrant. In my notes I have put the word ‘certain’ in inverted commas because while this achievement seems real to us it does not seem real to the customer. We did not give him the feeling that in the queue at the employment office the Italian got as fair a call up to the counter as did the Australian. When one stood there and looked one could see that that is what happened and that when it did not it was partly the result of the diffidence of the person concerned. It has been very difficult for Australians to accommodate these strange languages. We have done pretty well in giving migrants access to social security benefits, to some kinds of work and to schools. I think that some of the professions have performed miserably in attempting to crowd out people whose professional qualifications did not come from inside the English speaking network. I find myself totally unconvinced that most of the doctors from Europe are incapable of being doctors in Australia and I think it is most unseemly of the professional people in Australia that they have made it so difficult for these people.

There are some things that we did badly. We did not prepare schools for the arrival of these children. We did not prepare a proper housing program for them. We did not prepare community services such as translation services to accommodate them, nor did we take any steps to accommodate them by changing our social climate. So those are the lessons of the last 30 years. We are learning them slowly. If somebody calls at my office and speaks a language such as Yugoslav which we cannot handle there, it is now possible to pick up the telephone, ring the translator service and find somebody at the other end who speaks that language. That is the sort of thing that should have been readily available 25 years ago. It was available then but only if one knew where to look for it. So some of these ideas are starting to gel now.

What are some of the things we ought to do now? I think that it is time we made naturalisation easier. I understand that there is an enormous hold-up on naturalisation applications simply because people have to be investigated. For heaven’s sake, why do they need investigation if they have lived here for 3 years and have worked satisfactorily? We probably would get the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to look at them for some mysterious reason. I would not let ASIO tell me the time and from what I have seen of its behaviour I would not believe it even if it did. So I think this requirement for investigation is nonsense. In Victoria, which is not a notably liberal State, using that word in the English sense and not giving it the prostituted definition that it is given in politics on the other side of the House- using the word ‘liberal ‘ in the sense of treating people as equals- it is now possible for anybody to vote in municipal elections whether they are naturalised or not as long as they are occupiers of property. I suppose it is symbolic of Victorian Liberal or conservative politics that this qualification has to do with property and not people but still it is an effective step towards equality. I think the time has come when we should consider this matter of equality more carefully.

Once a person has lived here in such a way that it can be determined that he intends to stay, that he is part of the scene and is working and paying taxes, naturalisation ought to be a right, and ought to be easy to get. Some might say that the waiting period should be 12 months or something of that nature. The application for naturalisation ought to be lodged at the local town hall and processed almost immediately. I am inclined towards a ceremonial admission to the Australian community but I would make naturalisation easier with a shorter qualifying period. I can think of no reason for an investigation to be carried out. It is wrong to allow people to live for years in our midst and deny them the rights of naturalisation and all the things that flow from it. We should not let them come here in the first place if we are not prepared to put up with what they are, warts and all.

There are another couple of eccentricities in the migration scheme. A person might arrive in Australia, find that he likes it- there are people like that- and decide that he would like to stay. He is the son of person I would allow to stay. I believe that the idea of the visitor’s visa and the right to stay after you have been tasted and tried is much more sensible than bringing out here people who find when they get here that they do not like it. I suspect that there will not be millions of people rushing out here. The sort of person we should allow to stay is the person who can pay his own fare, who is prepared to come under his own steam and when he gets here to find a job and friends. We should reduce all the difficulties and start to apply a more humane view to the question of refugees. We ought to keep a sharp eye on whether or not we can take more people. There is not much to be said one way or the other on whether we would be better off with 30 million people than with 14 million people, but there is tons of room in this country and it might well be that at this stage an expanded migration program would increase employment opportunities. But the Government would have to change a whole host of its neuroses about public expenditure and so on. One of the advantages of the Green Paper and the debate on it is that at last an opportunity has been provided for full debate.

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

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Alluding briefly to the comments of the previous speaker, one might say that the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has always been a friendly and warm person. However, I suggest that should the system he advocated in the closing moments of his speech be introduced, contrary to the simplistic view that he holds there would be a great rush of people to this country from all over the world. At a time of very high unemployment, I do say with some respect and warmth that I believe his suggestion to be impractical. I am taking the opportunity to speak tonight in this debate for an entirely different reason, but before I deal with the subject I wish to canvass I should mention that I personally have been enriched in the last decade because I have had the privilege of representing the largest migrant community in any Federal electorate in the State of Queensland. In my electorate there are some 6000 Greeks, 1500 Italians, 2000 people of Russian origin, and a host of other nationalities. Coming from a true blue Australian background, with the possible taint of beer and the meat pie, I believe that mixing with these people has added greatly to my own make-up, and I am grateful to them for what they have given to me and what they have brought to this country.

Enough of compliments. I wish tonight to raise a question which is rather indirectly connected with the subject we are debating. I want to question seriously the suitability of Mr Grassby, the Commissioner for Community Relations, to continue in that position. I do so because I believe that a person in his position should be regarded by the community as being able to administer a delicate task with balance and fairness, and without bias. It may not be Mr Grassby’s fault, but he has given the community the distinct impression that he has a pre-occupation with the subject of racism to an extent which seriously impedes his judgment. Indeed, when he lost his seat in this Parliament in 1974 he blamed entirely the actions of a group which represents at most 1 per cent of the thinking in this country. The swing in 1 974 against Mr Grassby in the seat of Riverina was 7 per cent. He was one of 4 Australian Labor Party Federal members of Parliament who that year lost their seats in this House, but the only explanation he had was that he was the victim of a vicious racist campaign. There is not a truly rural Labor Party politician left in this House now.

Mr Fitzpatrick:

– Rubbish!

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member has a big mining centre in his electorate. I used the term truly ‘rural’. I am not talking about miners; I am talking about farmerspeople who work with their hands and plough the fields. That is what we mean when we use the word ‘rural’. The honourable member’s misunderstanding of that word is very basic to the Labor Party’s whole failure to grasp the problems of country people. As I was about to say, it was not because of racism but because of Labor Party policies. Such is the extent of Mr Grassby ‘s overpowering awareness of race differences that his obsession with them blinds him.

As I said before, I have a large migrant community in my electorate. I represent an electorate which is very diverse in relation to the countries of origin of its constituents. A huge percentage of the residents of the Griffith electorate have come to this country as migrants from many countries. They have many things in common with those people born in Australia. A question which I am frequently asked by people of all origins is this: When are they going to replace Mr Grassby? He causes more problems than he settles’. That is a very widely held view in the community, and I repeat it: He causes more problems than he settles. I must allude to a current personal experience which reaches into new dimensions in what I regard as his unsuitability to hold down his position as Commissioner for Community Relations.

Mr Fitzpatrick:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask you whether it is in order for the honourable member, under the guise of discussing immigration policies and Australia’s population, to make an attack on an ex-member of this House who is not here to defend himself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is a matter for the honourable member himself to judge. He is relating his remarks to migrants in Australia, and so far his remarks are in order.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Grassby is currently using his position of great, and almost unlimited, power to pursue an issue under the guise of seeking racial harmony when his motives are blatantly political. He has chosen to ride on the back of a tiger and, in my view, he should end up inside it.

For the information of the House I wish to relate an incident which commenced on 9 February this year when I claimed in Brisbane that a group of Aborigines had formed a cooperative to steal pension and social security cheques from letterboxes. That comment was reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 9 February, and the article goes on to state:

He said the group was moving into several Brisbane suburbs and using children to follow postmen and steal the cheques.

Mr Don Cameron, Liberal Member for Griffith, said cheques for thousands of dollars were being stolen each week.

He said information about the group had been given to him by an ‘extremely good source’. He said the group made their white criminal counterparts look like amateurs.

Mr Cameron warned businessmen that the Social Security Department would not take responsibility if they cashed stolen cheques.

Reserve Bank cheques are not as safe as a bar of gold, as many people believe ‘ he said.

That was the comment I made, and it was made in that way for 2 reasons. Firstly, the group which I had every reason to believe existed was easily identifiable and, secondly, it was a warning to the business community that that sort of activity was well and truly on in Brisbane. Two days later when the Parliament was still in recess I, as a responsible member of this House, wrote to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) suggesting that there was a need to reexamine the system of issuing cheques. I wrote in these terms:

Nevertheless, it is my view that we as a government owe it to individuals, who might be enticed into a life of crime, to make it more difficult by not putting temptation in their way.

I suggested that the whole system be immediately re-examined. Following that, Senator Colston, a Labor senator from Queensland, called on me to retract my comments and to apologise to the Aboriginal community. He claimed that because I had said that a group of Aborigines had formed a co-operative or a group I had insulted an entire race. This is absolutely ridiculous. I shall state for the benefit of the House the extent of cheque stealing in Australia at the present time. The figures for the first 7 months of the 1975-76 financial year indicate that throughout Australia 6912 cheques were stolen from letterboxes.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to order. My point of order is this: I have looked very carefully at the Green Paper and I can find no section of it which relates to Aborigines stealing cheques issued by the Department of Social Security. I think that the honourable member ought to stop his racist comments and get on to the subject under discussion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It is not for the Chair to judge whether the honourable member’s behaviour is proper or ethical. The debate before the House is upon a paper and ministerial statements dealing with immigration policies and Australia’s population. The honourable member is allowed to make passing references to facts to support his case on an ethnic basis. But if he continues to cite too many figures from the Department of Social Security, of course, I will be forced to stop him.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Very well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I abide by your wise ruling. I was not saying for a moment that the increase in the number of cheques stolen from 6912 cheques to 10 450 cheques, could be attributed to the actions of Aborigines; far from it. It was a pattern which was developing in this country- an overall increase of 5 1 per cent in the number of cheques stolen in 12 months involving an amount of approximately $3m. That is why I was concerned about this subject. I shall move along with my speech. This Senator Colston of the Australian Labor Party from the other House continued to whip up political feelings in Queensland under the guise of being concerned that Aborigines had been gravely insulted. I believe my statements to be correct. They will be borne out. At this moment 8 people are in the remand section of the Brisbane prison and will come to trial in a few days time. They happen to be Aborigines. They happen to have been working as a group. Every accusation I made will be proven to be correct. I derive no pleasure from being right on this matter -

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. Apparently, a case is before the courts. The honourable member has found the people charged guilty already. Surely that is contrary to the Standing Orders. Either the matter is sub judice or his actions are indecent, or both.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think that the honourable member, because of the sub judice rule, should not continue with that subject.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for that. I seriously doubt whether the point is worth argument. The point is that if I am proven right, I will derive no pleasure. But I believe that I had a responsibility to the Australian taxpayer and I do not believe I have offended any group. I wish to elaborate upon my claims about Mr Grassby. Because I refused to apologise, Senator Colston then took the unprecedented action of contacting one, Mr Grassby. Here was a Labor senator contacting a former ALP State member of Parliament and a former ALP Minister and member of this House. I said at the time I felt a little like a Christian going before Idi Amin. That is exactly how I felt, knowing Mr Grassby ‘s background. On 6 April 1977 I received from Mr Grassby, the Commissioner for Community Relations, a letter in which he outlined certain procedures that he had undertaken and gave me certain advice as to procedures I should follow. I sent him a telegram dated 12 April 1977 which read as follows:

Your courteous letter of 6 April received. If this is a matter which comes under your jurisdiction, the Act should be changed. I have no intention of communicating with yourself or anybody in your office concerning a matter which under section 21 can only be considered trivial, vexatious, not made in good faith and, in my words, blatantly political.

I believe that this Commissioner- a man with a highly political background- has used his position to persecute somebody of a different political persuasion. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 states clearly that the Commissioner should throw out a complaint if he believes the complaint to be quite frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith. By saying that I will not accept the Commissioner’s directions, I place myself under section 27 of the Act, where I can be fined up to $500 because a person ‘shall not insult, hinder, obstruct, molest or interfere with the Commissioner’. The Commissioner need not fear that I will ever desire to molest him but I have no hesitation in obstructing his inquiries on this occasion because I believe that his motivation is ill based.

I notice that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) is at the table. I am pleased he is here at this moment to hear what I have to say. I believe it is high time that Mr Grassby was brought to heel. I believe that on this occasion he has wrongly used the Act for political reasons.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the honourable member for Griffith to run the risk of breaching the sub judice rule in raising issues which are before a court in Brisbane in order to continue a long and bitter personal vendetta against an exmember of this House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Griffith has not transgressed the Standing Orders. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In entering a debate on Australia’s immigration policies and population it strikes me as rather odd that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), who preceded me in this debate, spent all his time talking about Aborigines. If we are to regard Aborigines as immigrants we really are going to have an absurd debate. Of course, what prompted that outrageous tirade from the honourable member were some activities of the Commissioner for Community Relations in investigating activities by the honourable member. I do not wish to talk about them. But I do think that the Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Grassby, during his time both as Minister for Immigration in the first Whitlam Government and now as Commissioner for Community Relations, has devoted a good deal of time and attention to a lot of the problems which are canvassed in this Green Paper that we are discussing tonight.

I want to talk about the human face of our immigration policies. I believe that the debate to date has been relatively low key; it has not been conducted in an unduly partisan fashion. Whilst people have commented from time to time on the way in which certain programs have administered by the Government and on certain directions that the Government is now seeking to take, basically we have been talking in largely theoretical terms about directions of immigration policies. I believe that we can get a good picture of Australian society now if we look at something that the Commissioner for Community Relations said in his first annual report last year:

Australians by demographic definition are the newest people in the world since the median age of the population is 28 and one Australian in three is a product of post-war migration. The 3. 1 million people who came to Australia in the last quarter-century from more than 100 countries and peoples around the world have produced nearly a million children. An indication of the impact of migration is that proportionately for every migrant arriving in the United States since World War II, 40 have come to Australia. The influx has led to Australia having the largest overseas-born work force in the world outside Israel. It is estimated that 52 per cent of all blue collar manual workers were born outside the country and 27 per cent of all working age Australians came from somewhere else.

In the time available to me I should like to talk about the situation in Australia that faces these people who have come here as a direct result of migration policies pursued by successive Australian governments over the past several decades. The Green Paper reports that in the main immigrants to this country choose to concentrate themselves in the cities and that they choose to congregate quite often near persons of the same ethnic origin. The result of that is that as a member who represents in this House an inner city electorate I have great numbers of these people in my electorate.

One of the basic questions to which the Green Paper addresses itself in chapter 7 dealing with society and the migrant is particularly the question that has emerged within the last couple of years of a heightening of ethnic identity. The Green Paper at page 57 poses the proposition:

Some Australians are genuinely concerned about the possibility of racial and ethnic tensions, evident in other countries, developing in Australia as a result of continued migration from particular sources.

At the same page the Green Paper points out:

In recent years there has been some debate concerning the extent to which Australia should encourage the development of separate and identifiable ethnic organisations and activities rather than promoting the integration of ethnic groups into the larger Australian society.

I have fairly strongly developed views on those questions. In the year and a half that I have been representing my electorate in this Parliament I have had a great deal of contact with a considerable number of ethnic organisations of different ethnic groups. I have had contact with Greeks, Italians, Yugoslavs, Lebanese and Turks- in fact most of the larger groups represented in Australia, particularly those that have come to Australia in recent years and not so much, of course, from countries such as Germany and the Netherlands which used to be source countries. I have formed the strong impression that the heightening of ethnic identity is essential if we are to avoid the very kind of intentions about which the authors of the Green Paper were concerned. It is not an exclusive concept. I believe that by encouraging ethnic organisations to form and to acknowledge their cultural background we in fact promote an integrity in Australia.

Honourable members will see for themselves that ethnic organisations, in order better to promote their causes in public, in the parliaments, in life generally in their communities, have banded together into ethnic community councils. In most States the management of many of the new institutions that have emerged during the last few years is in the hands of groups which might fairly have been regarded traditionally as being opposed to each other. This is especially so in respect of groups from Europe. These groups are now working together. We have instances where Turks and Greeks are working alongside each other, notwithstanding the different views they might have on questions such as Cyprus or the search for oil in the Aegean Sea. At least the fact that they have been able to get together and work together has been of tremendous advantage. In dealing with every level of community organisation in my constituency I see how much better ethnic organisations are able to function when they work in this way.

Next Saturday I shall attend the Yugoslav ethnic school in Newtown in my electorate. This is one of the largest of these institutions in New South Wales and, I suspect, in Australia. It is a Saturday morning school and is run on a voluntary basis. Some of the kids who attend the school- some were born outside Australia but most of them were bom here- have parents who came from Yugoslavia. I do not have to canvass here for honourable members the tensions that exist within the Yugoslav community in Australia between the various peoples of the republics of that country. The country of Yugoslavia is a multicultural and a multilanguage society. The Yugoslav school has been able to attract support from politicians like me and from the New South Wales Department of Education in a way in which would not be possible if the Yugoslav people were to approach us simply as Serbs, Croats, Macedonians or Slovenes. By coming together and working together it is impossible for anybody in the community who has regard for the interests of these persons to ignore such a large group.

Periodically, I suppose, those of us who were born in this country and those of us whose families have lived here for generations remark on the supposedly volatile nature and temperament of a good many people who have come here in recent years. I believe that the media has played up quite irresponsibly the violence that, in popular minds, is supposed to exist in these communities. For instance, we never hear about the violent brawls that take place every week amongst crowds on a perfectly anti-social basis at games of Australian rules football or Rugby league but we get quite mischievious reporting of violence at soccer games which may involve persons who were not born in this country. When it does happen I am very heartened with the reaction in the ethnic communities themselves. Whenever this kind of violence occurs- I am referring particularly, I suppose, to the way it occurs between Serbs and Croats- persons who are active in the Yugoslav community understand that it is their responsibility to work it out for themselves and to get their own people who have come here to abide by Australian standards in this matter. They are doing that. They would not be able to do that unless this increased identity with their cultural background had been given recognition in the past couple of years. To the extent that that question concerns the Council, I hope that it will do some surveys when it comes out with further reports, as I hope it will, and that the Council will see that in fact not only amongst the ethnic communities themselves but in the perception of the active ethnic community organisations by older generation Australians, it has been a positive advantage to have had this identity of ethnic groups emerge during the past couple of years.

There are aspects of certain of the other services to which the report refers that I believe it can only have seriously canvassed the questionability of them in the purest academic sense. Referring to the migrant settlement services that are available in this country and which are administered largely by the Department of Social Security, the Green Paper, in the same chapter dealing with ‘Society and the migrant’, at page 55, puts this view:

One view goes so far as to suggest that the situation of migrants in relation to education, health services etc. -

I do not like to see a word like ‘etcetera’ in reports like this; it is fairly sloppy- is so poor that consideration should seriously be given to stopping or at least reducing non-English-speaking immigration.

One of the things we are doing- my good friend the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) alluded to this earlier- is that in the last couple of years we have been redressing the neglect of a couple of decades. The kind of services that are novel and which have been provided and about which politicians go around patting themselves on the back, are services we should have been providing for migrants in this country for at least the last couple of decades. I refer to the telephone interpreter service, the ethnic radio organisation, the provision of specialised migrant social workers and welfare workers. These sorts of facilities ought to have been available for many years past. Now that we have developed them, I hope that to an extent they will be built into the system. By saying they should be built into the system I do not mean that they should be built into it in an inflexible way but in a way that will respond to needs as they develop. In the field of education we now are developing a large number of teachers who are becoming expert in migrant education, and these people will go into the teaching services of the several States to pass on that knowledge to people who come in. In turn we will have those facilities there to receive from overseas large numbers of migrants from non-English-speaking countries. These kinds of facilities that we are building up will be built into the system to that extent and will be available for the assistance of migrants who come to this country.

The Green Paper also canvasses the source of our immigrants. It makes the very fair point that migrants who come to this country and whose native tongue is not English occasionally find it more difficult to settle in Australia than those who speak English when they come here. I would regard the possession of English as being an extra attribute for someone who wants to come to Australia but I think it would be a grave mistake if we were to set ourselves against the entry into Australia of persons who do not speak English. There is no evidence- in fact, the evidence is all to the contrary- that persons who come here and who do not speak English do not learn it quickly. The Green Paper refers to old people. Particularly in the family-reunion category, a lot of dependent parents come to Australia and for quite understandable reasons find it beyond them to learn the English language at that stage of their life, especially given the fact that they live within a small family environment. If we look at the generations which are in the work force and especially at their children, we will see that there is a tremendous willingness to learn English, an ability to learn it, and an ability to go out into the work force and get jobs, no matter how limited their English is. Any suggestion that we ought actively to favour those who do possess the English language now, no matter what their other personal attributes may be or what are their occupational qualifications and their family connections in Australia, is I believe a backward step.

I cannot conclude my remarks in a debate such as this without once more being critical of what I believe are the back door efforts of the Government to give preference to the recruitment of migrants in the United Kingdom. The English newspapers that I see periodically still contain advertisements in the most general language for migrants to Australia. The State governments’ offices in London are undoubtedly being used as a back door way of bringing British migrants to this country in preference to persons from other countries who, I believe, have just as good a claim to come to Australia to make new lives for themselves and their families. This has been a very useful Green Paper. I join the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) in commending the Council for its production. I hope it is not the last Green Paper on this subject. I hope that we will get some more concrete reports on statistics which will back up some of the assertions contained in this report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

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

– in reply- In closing the debate on the consideration of the Green Paper I say first how much I appreciate the contribution of honourable members on both sides of the House in putting forward their views on what I regard as probably the most significant area of discussion that we, as legislators, can be looking for in terms of Australia’s future population- not just in the next couple of years but also in the year 2000 and beyond. I think it is fairly significant that this is the first Green Paper on Australia’s immigration policies and population ever presented in the Federal Parliament. Some people- both inside and outside this House- have misconstrued the purpose of the Green Paper. They have not realised that it does not postulate Government policy but, in fact, is designed to stimulate discussion. I hope that this discussion will take place in the broadest sense throughout the Australian community. I think it is significant that so far in this debate 21 members of the House of Representatives have spoken. That is a fair proportion of the total membership of this House. I do not have the figures but I would believe that that is the highest number of members who have contributed to a single debate on this subject, at least in my memory.

The range of contributions has reflected the range of opinions that people have in relation to the propositions raised in the Green Paper. What the Green Paper does in essence- what it is designed to do and, I believe, what it achieves- is to draw together a number of the strands which impinge upon the difficulties and objectives which result in formulation of Government policy. It is easy to think about immigration policy in relation to employment or unemployment, population, demographic distribution and a whole host of other things, but this is the first time it has brought these aspects together in a single document where the language is, I believe, easily understood and where the length of the document is not so great as to deter people from reading it. I am very pleased that the debate has been conducted largely in a bipartisan fashion. It was a significant feature of earlier times that the immigration policies of previous governments were conducted largely in a bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, in my view, that situation changed in recent years but hopefully the debate today has restored some of the objectivity and some of the bipartisan nature of previous approaches towards immigration policy.

What we are all talking about is the future population of Australia, how it is composed, where it comes from, its distribution and the nature of the society which comes from it. I believe the response to the Green Paper and the large number of speakers is a very positive indication of the concern within this House about these significant questions. I hope that the length of the debate in the House and the nature of the contributions will stimulate both individuals and organisations in the community at large to contribute their views to the Government in relation to the matters raised by the Green Paper. To this end I would like to mention at this stage that in the near future we will be advertising right throughout Australia to encourage groups and individuals to get hold of the Green Paper, to read and consider it and then to send to my Department their views in relation to the various alternatives raised.

Again I say that I am pleased that the debate to a great extent was outside the normal narrow confines of party political exchanges in this House. I think that a common feature has been the understanding, realisation and expression of support for the marked changes which have occurred in Australia particularly as a result of the consistent large scale post-war immigration program. I believe that everybody has appreciated the marked cultural changes which have taken place in this country, but not only cultural changes are involved. We would be a much lesser nation today without the contribution of the 3.3 million people from overseas, and of course their descendants.

I would like briefly to mention some of the aspects of the Green Paper which I believe need emphasis at this stage. I refer particularly to demographic trends. There has been a consistent downward trend in Australia’s fertility rates. There has been a downward trend in population growth particularly since 1971. This, if continued, indicates that the population in Australia in the year 2000 will be nothing like the 20 million or more which was confidently predicted only a few years ago. The change consists of a pronounced slowing of natural increase and low net and gross immigration rates. In reiteration, the arrivals in 1975-76 were the lowest for 30 years. Under present circumstances, taking into account the fertility patterns which are emerging in Australia, immigration is likely to be the only controllable variable in the population growth rate. I know that some honourable members during the debate talked about the need for pronatalist population policies. I will deal with that a little later. On the evidence that is before us at the moment the immigration variable is the only controllable variable that is available to governments in terms of population policies. In relation to this an immigration variable is significant in terms of placement of people as well as numbers.

The net reproduction rate in Australia, as in most other developed countries, is around or just below replacement level in the long term. It is continuing to fall. This means that although population will not be stationary because of past high levels of fertility and high inputs of young immigrants we have produced at the moment an age structure with a high proportion of young in child bearing ages. But the effects of demographic changes in the future will be most important. Perhaps the most significant of all is that any reversal in declining fertility or 2-child families in Australia is unlikely. I know there is a group within the Australian population which suggests that this change may come about. There is no evidence to suggest that the declining fertility or the trend for a 2-child family in Australia will, in fact, be reversed. The evidence suggests that fertility will decline even further. Despite the lower average age at marriage and the higher proportion of people actually being married, the fact is that no baby boom is expected. Recent trends in natural increase confirm that the NPI projections outlined in the Green Paper will be sustained.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) in his contribution to the debate cast some doubt as to the authority and the accuracy of the projections contained in the Borrie Committee report. I can understand this because the fact is that when the honourable gentleman was a Minister in the previous Government, the Borrie Committee report laid to rest some of the assumptions upon which he and his department were working in the development of their growth centre policy. On the evidence available so far there is no real indication that the projections contained in the Borrie Committee report are, in fact, incorrect. They are seen at this stage to be conservative rather than the reverse. The Green Paper points to the implications of present demographic trends. In particular, it points to the shortages of skilled labour which could emerge in the 1980s. The labour force growth rate most likely will decline even with a medium immigration program. By a medium immigration program, I am talking about a net gain of SO 000 per year.

There will be reduced enrolments in schools and post-secondary institutions. This is postulated in the Green Paper. There is likely to be reduced rates of growth in the major urban centres with an increased proportion of the population over 60 years of age. I do not think that we should forget the international implications for Australia which is a country magnificently endowed with natural resources and which also has a sparse population in a region where population pressures will become even more acute in the future. We should not forget the international ramifications of that situation.

As I have said, 2 1 speakers took part in this debate. It would obviously be too long a task to go through the contributions of each speaker but I note in passing that the speech of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), who is the Opposition spokesman on immigration, attacked the proposition that Australia should look to higher population rates and attacked the proposition that we should be looking at net immigration rates of approximately 50 000 per year. I mention that because it is in somewhat marked contrast to the contributions of speakers from both sides of the House. In fact, very few honourable members who took part in this debate suggested that we should not continue with the immigration program or that we should not look to a greater population in this country. It was stated that we have international and humanitarian obligations in respect of family reunions and particularly in respect of refugee resettlement.

The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) in particular talked about the need for pro-natalist population policies. I stated previously that I would mention this matter briefly. I have a note which suggests that in Germany and Italy several decades ago deterrent policies were applied to discourage couples from deferring having children. Despite other moral and related pressures applied by the authorities to supplement their tax disincentives it appears that fertility levels in those 2 countries were not significantly increased. The most significant example of an incentive program is in France where extremely generous family allowances and other material incentives were provided by government to encourage people to have more children. The French birth rate is quite low despite this, and is continuing to fall. Some eastern European and European countries and the Soviet Union have resorted to strict controls on abortion as a means of bolstering birth rates. Initially these measures had the effect of increasing fertility. However, before long birth rates dropped to or about previous levels with growing use of contraception and the development of illegal abortion services. So whilst there was an initial kick up in the fertility rate it then started to decline again.

Mr Young:

– With a much higher percentage of women in the work force.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– There is a high percentage of women in the work force in those countries as well but the point I should like to make in relation to pro-natalist policies is that the evidence we have so far indicates that they are not likely to be terribly successful and even if they were, the cost to the community of achieving the aims of these pro-natalist policies would be extremely high. I should like to mention the contributions of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam). They both spoke about similar things. They talked about the cultural plurality of the Australian society at the moment. The honourable member for Grayndler talked about the need for increased identity in respect of ethnic groups which are present, particularly in the major cities in Australia at the moment. I agree that we must provide an atmosphere for groups, for individuals to- (Extension of time granted). I thank the House. I was talking about the aspect of cultural pluralism in Australia and the need for ethnic groups to feel that they can retain a sense of identity. They should be encouraged to respect and to preserve those features of their cultural heritage which they believe are important and which I believe can make a marked contribution to the development of Australian society in the future. However, I sound a note of caution in respect of this because, as I have already said, whilst I would agree that we must respect the backgrounds of people who have come to Australia and encourage the learning of languages and the dissemination of culture from the many different sources, we must also bear in mind that what we are about is the development of a single nation with a single identity and a common language, and we must not allow cultural separatism to develop in Australia. I think that this warning needs to be issued at this stage because there are some who would bring about a situation where nationalism would become rampant and we would have a cultural separatism which I believe could only bring about an erection of barriers to understanding between different members of the Australian society.

Overall, the contributions to the debate came down firmly on the side of a developing population. I am particularly cognisant of the strength of the feeling on both sides of the House in relation to this matter. The debate has served to bring about an airing of people’s views as to the sort of Australia we should develop. I believe that it has been a successful debate. I believe that it will be even more successful if it brings about in the community at large a better understanding of the background to immigration policy development and as a result of the increased knowledge of that immigration policy development, a series of submissions to the Government which will reflect community views. As a result of that reflection of community views, the Government will be placed in a much better position to development immigration policies which will be acceptable to the nation as a whole and which will bring about the development of Australia, not just in the short term but, most importantly, in the medium and long term, of a size and of a nature which we would all support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 950

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr SINCLAIR:

-As I indicated to the House earlier today, it had been intended that a full statement would be made tonight on the Heads of Government Agreement. In the light of events this afternoon and the hearing before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, such a statement will not now be made. Due consideration will be given to the submissions made to the Arbitration Commission and the Commission’s decision. Some ministers will, of course, meet representatives of the peak Councils tomorrow. It is hoped that such discussions will contribute towards achieving the objectives so clearly enunciated in the Heads of Government Agreement and, of course, so widely endorsed at all levels through the Australian community.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr SCHOLES:

-The Opposition moved today for a statement on this matter. The freeze was announced last week. It is not something which is now being negotiated; it has been announced as a fact. We are now told that the Government is unable to draw up, or is incapable of drawing up a statement setting out the terms under which the freeze is supposed to operate. Having made a decision to implement a freeze, the Government has not, as yet, worked out the conditions under which such a freeze will operate. It has not set down guidelines and it was made clear today in question time that it does not really know how the thing is to operate. The most damaging thing that can be done to the Australian economy and the most damaging thing that can be done to the co-operation and goodwill which are available in the Australian community is for the Government to seek to play politics with a serious proposal which it has sought to adopt and which it has suggested is in operation, but on which in fact it is incapable of making a statement before this House nearly a week after the announcement that the proposal has been implemented and is in operation.

Mr Young:

– They cannot decide who is to give it.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I think that it is more serious than that. I think that it is the terms that are important, not the person who is to read the words. I suggest that the Government is groping for means by which to implement a slogan. Whatever was agreed upon by the Premiers and what was put forward by the Premier of Victoria was certainly not a plan or a concrete proposal. It was an idea which had been bandied around the country and suggested as being a policy. The Government is unable to indicate a week later, and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is unable to come into this House and say definitely how, and which, goods are to be included or excluded from any freeze and how, and by what means, any wages policy or wages restraint is to be acted upon or implemented. None of these questions has been considered. The most serious fault of all is that consultation with the persons and groups who could be expected to carry out such a policy has not yet been undertaken. It is all right for the employer groups to race in and say that they will agree. The supermarkets said they would agree ‘except ‘ -

Mr Yates:

– And the retailers.

Mr SCHOLES:

-The retailers said that they would agree ‘except’. All made qualifications. In other countries where such a policy has been proposed, the government concerned has taken the time to go into the details, to make proper plans and to seek agreement from those whose co-operation is needed. I do not know how the Government can expect any group to co-operate in a wages and prices freeze or any other proposition of that nature without first consulting that group and seeking its opinion on how the proposition should be implemented and how it should operate. The Government certainly is more involved at the moment in sloganising and political gimmickry than it is in putting forward a concrete proposal. The reason that such a statement cannot be made in the House tonight is that there are no firm guidelines. The discussions have not taken place and the Government is not in a position to know what its proposal is all about.

Mr Yates:

– It is voluntary.

Mr SCHOLES:

-‘Voluntary’ is a nice word, but it does not mean a damn thing if the proposal cannot be implemented- and it cannot be implemented. We had the experience in Melbourne at the weekend of a service station proprietor charging 22c a litre for petrol that happened to be in short supply because of an economic decision and of the Premier of Victoria asking the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, of which the service station proprietor was not a member, to discipline the gentleman concerned in order to enable the Premier’s voluntary wages and prices freeze to be brought about. I point out to the honourable member for Holt that if the Industrial Relations Bureau were in operation in the manner in which it appears on the notice paper the VACC, if it had been able to discipline the gentleman concerned, would have been subject to prosecution under that legislation for interfering with his individual rights. It is not suggested that the freeze be voluntary. The unions are not being asked voluntarily to forgo wage rises. The court is being asked to freeze their applications.

Mr Sinclair:

– That is nonsense.

Mr SCHOLES:

-That is exactly what is being asked. The court also is being asked to override a decision it made less than 2 weeks ago. To its credit it has said quite clearly that its job is to carry out the task it is given under legislation and that the Government’s job is to look after economic policy.

We as a Parliament are in the position where we have had an announcement that the government of the day is committed to a certain course of economic activity, the details of which that government of the day cannot tell the Parliament because it has not thought them through and has not taken any of the preliminary steps that are necessary in order to evolve such a policy. The failure of the Government to make a statement some 6 hours after it gave an undertaking to this Parliament that a statement would be made and some 5 or 6 days after the policy itself was said by the Prime Minister to be in operation indicates just how ad hoc and ill-considered are the propositions.

Although the Prime Minister has made some statement on the subject we still do not know definitely whether primary producers, for instance, will have the prices of their products frozen- I am sure that they cannot afford to do so- or whether Australian manufacturers will have to freeze the prices of their products even if the cost of imports rises and makes their competitive position impossible. We do not know the details and, quite obviously, we are not going to get the details from this Government. All sorts of statements are being made, but no policy can be put before this Parliament for its scrutiny and debate. That is the plain truth about this set of policies. The Government is asking for co-operation in relation to something which does not exist. It is a gimmick. It is typical Hamerism- think of something to draw attention away from the present. That is the way in which the Victorian Premier has always operated. It has been seized upon by the Prime Minister to take attention away from the double taxation deals that he was putting to the Premiers last week without a great deal of success or co-operation, if 1 may say so. The Prime Minister has been successful in getting that proposition off the front pages. He now does not know how to handle the alternative that he has seized upon. I believe it is a disgrace that the Government cannot come before this Parliament and set out in detail a policy that it claimed was implemented a week ago.

Mr Yates:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr Scholes:

– We said ‘yes’, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr Yates:

-Why not?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Holt has been in this House long enough to know that the question which he asked should never have been asked.

Mr Young:

– I seek leave to continue my statement which has been made-

Mr Yates:

– No. Object.

Mr Morris:

– We gave you leave.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Yates:

– No. Object.

Mr Sinclair:

– I ask that the business of the day be called on.

page 952

COMMONWEALTH BUREAU OF ROADS (REPEAL) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-When I last addressed myself to this Bill and the debate was interrupted I had briefly outlined some of the complaints that had been made by members of the staff of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads. I had also entered into some of the arguments that have been raised by local governments on this issue. I think it was made clear that the Australian Labor Party has no opposition to the amalgamation of the 2 bodies that is suggested. Our objection is to the lack of legislation to deal with the replacement for those bodies. One should take some notice of the history of this matter. The Coomb’s task force report of June 1973, Review of the Continuing Expenditure Policies of the Previous Government, in item 48, paragraph 5 contains the following comment:

There appears to have been no compelling reason for setting up the Bureau of Transport Economics separately in 1970, -

That was under a previous Liberal Government- rather than enlarging the functions of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads to take in all of surface transport. The main reason appears to have been that the Bureau of Roads had gained the confidence of the States and it was feared that, given the inter-modal jealousies existing in the transport field, widening its functions might complicate its role in the roads field, in which extensive liaison with State road authorities occurred. The independence which its statutory role gave to the Bureau of Roads appears also to have been unwelcome to the proponents of a wider ranging transport research bureau.

In that lies some of the reasons for the action being taken by this Government in abolishing the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, not replacing it by another body with any legislative description, but letting it disappear within the Department where it will be subject to political direction. Further, its independent assessments will not be available. Since the debate was last in the House I have received a stream of correspondence on this matter. I refer to some of the points made which tend to confirm that many people active in the field believe as the Labor Party believes. For example, the Municipal Association of Victoria affirms:

That Commonwealth legislation to replace the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads should also set out the role, functions and responsibilities of the amalgamated body.

That the new body should be independent reporting directly to the Minister -

One would hope that it would be reporting to the Parliament as well-

That levels of consultation existing with the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads and which demonstrate cooperative federalism at work be maintained.

That is something that we had achieved and which had gained real meaning. Another local government body, the City of Heidelberg, which wrote to me, supporting this submission unfortunately places its accent on increased funding and requests that this view be supported in any legislation covering road funding in the near future’. The Bureau of Roads did something more than that in its examination. I turn once more to another local council in my area, the City of Preston. The reason I refer to the correspondence from this council is that a majority of its councillors are anti-Labor Party.

Mr McVeigh:

– But they are elected by the people.

Dr JENKINS:

-If the honourable member for Darling Downs put his brain into gear before he opened his mouth he might appreciate the argument which is being made.

Mr McVeigh:

– They are anti-Labor, you said.

Dr JENKINS:

– Yes, they are anti-Labor.

Mr McVeigh:

– They are elected by the people, the democratic process.

Dr JENKINS:

– Yes, they are elected by the people and they disagree with the actions which are being taken by this Government in destroying the independent Bureau of Roads by failing to define its structure. Groups which would support the honourable member for Darling Downs are objecting to the action which this Government is taking.

Mr Morris:

– It is suppressing information.

Dr JENKINS:

– Yes, it is suppressing independent examination. The councillors are democratically elected and they are saying to the Government: ‘What you are doing is atrocious’. They express their concern. Probably because I have the same view as they have they think they are disadvantaged by this Government. They recognise the bias and lack of common sense. A letter states:

My council is very concerned at the complete disregard by the Commonwealth of the recommendations of the Bureau of Roads, not only in relation to the level of assistance to be given but the manner in which these funds have been allocated between the various categories of road works.

A table has been included in the letter and it highlights this point. Because of time I ask for leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

The table read as follows-

Dr JENKINS:

-I thank the House. The town clerk in the letter comments further on this table:

To my knowledge, no reasons have been given for over riding the findings of an independent, expert and impartial body, but it is obvious that urban areas are being penalised to enable funds to be granted to rural areas far in excess of that recommended by the Bureau.

That is the opinion of those democratically elected conservative councillors in my area where, fortunately, the people have the good sense to return Australian Labor Party members in both the State and Federal Parliaments. The councillors are expressing their opinion of what the Government is doing at the moment. They go on in other correspondence to support once again what we in the Australian Labor Party have suggested about this legislation. One just does not abolish an organisation like this. A further letter of 9 March states:

The role, functions and responsibilities will have legislative authority . . .

So the councillors are asking that we are not to take on trust the setting up and amalgamation of the 2 bodies by the Government. The proposed body will have no defined functions, no defined way in which examination in so many areas will be carried out and no defined way in which Parliament and the public will be able to examine the authority. The letter further states:

The Bureau be independent, reporting direct to the Minister rather than being attached to or incorporated in the Depanment.

Once again this reinforces what the Labor Party had to say. Time does not allow me to extend the argument any further. I have reiterated some of the arguments which I placed before the House previously. I have reiterated the attitude of the Labor Party on these matters. I have affirmed that by showing the attitudes of other bodies which could not be accused of political bias and which have reinforced the arguments which we, as an Opposition, have put forward in opposition to this Bill.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your guidance. It is the usual courtesy of the House that when a Bill is before the chamber the responsible Minister attends the chamber during the debate. I understand that it has been the traditional courtesy that if he is unable to attend the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition spokesman is advised. I point out that no message has been received by the Opposition about the absence of the Minister for Transport during this debate. I ask your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, on what can be done to assure his presence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order; it is a point of view.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

– It is incredible how much time can be unnecessarily wasted in this House. The Bill under debate is a Bill to repeal the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Act 1964. This does not mean that the officers from the Bureau and the functions they perform are being abandoned. Instead a new approach, an advisory body to be known as the Bureau of Transport Economics, is being established. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) made it clear in his second reading speech that the present functions of both the old Bureau of Roads and the old Bureau of Transport Economics would continue. Briefly stated, those functions are: firstly, in consultation with the State governments and local government authorities to continue the study of roads in Australia and to report to the Minister, a function that will not change; and secondly, to consider policy aimed at the reduction of transport costs, the improvement of transport efficiency and the rationalisation of transport facilities, planning and administrative procedures. The secondary function of the new

Bureau of Transport Economics will be to assist Commonwealth, State and local government authorities and instrumentalities on all matters relating to transport planning and the development of all transport modes in this country.

I would like to consider the various objections which have been made by a number of responsible and interested bodies against the amalgamation of these 2 bureaus. If the new Bureau of Transport economics is to function effectively, it is important that its critics are satisfied that their several commentaries have been answered. I will deal with representations which have been submitted by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, the Australian Road Federation and the Municipal Association of Victoria. The Australian Council of Local Government Associations believes that to maintain the Bureau’s standard and role as an independent and autonomous adviser to the Commonwealth Government the following criteria should be adopted: The new Bureau should be established by an Act of Parliament as was the old Bureau of Roads in 1964; the new Bureau of Transport Economics should not be incorporated within the Department of Transport; any advice or commentary should be direct to the Minister for Transport and not through the department head; and finally, all of the previous functions of the bureau of roads should be incorporated in the functions of the new Bureau and specifically stated in the proposed new legislation. The Municipal Association of Victoria endorses the main thrust of the Council’s arguments that the new Bureau must be independent and seem to be autonomous; further, that the new Bureau ought to be established under Commonwealth legislation. The Australian Road Federation bases its objection on one basic premise which is shared by the other 2 bodies, and that is its belief that the new Bureau ‘cannot perform its essential role as a minor part of a major government department ‘.

Time does not allow me the opportunity of a detailed analysis of the various arguments which are advanced by these 3 bodies in support of their respective cases. The Municipal Association of Victoria refers to the Bureau of Roads report of 1975 and to the basic objectives pursued by the old Bureau for the past 10 years. Those objectives were aimed at obtaining a safe, efficient and convenient road transportation system to meet the present and changing needs, requirements and preferences of the nation. Those objectives are protected in the assurances which the Minister gave to the House in his second reading speech. I now quote a number of statements and assurances from the Minister. He said:

The independence of the BTE’s advice and its Director’s free access to me as Minister are established facts. There will certainly be no erosion of these rights as a result of amalgamation. The new body will act as indepenently in undertaking research and supplying advice as the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads and the BTE have in the past.

The Minister further assured the House:

The new body will continue the present functions of both the present Bureaus.

He further stated:

There will be no restriction by the Department of Transport or any other Commonwealth department on the work or advices of the Bureau. Its offices will be as freely available to State, local governments, private enterprises and individuals as at present.

He also said:

The present BTE is not established by legislation but is attached to the Department of Transport. As I have already said, no one has ever questioned the integrity or the independence of the BTE. It has always operated with the same degree of autonomy that the Bureau of Roads has enjoyed.

I believe that those assurances from the Minister answer the several objections which have been raised around Australia against the amalgamation. However, I would respectfully request the Minister to ensure a continual and persistent monitoring of the operation of the new Bureau to make certain that its independence is maintained and the quality of its advice is not reduced by virtue of its position within the Department of Transport.

I turn now to consider one of the major functions of the Bureau of Transport Economics and I refer here to the future planning of transport in this country. Governments at all levels, professional planners and sociologists all are aware of the impact on our environment of the movement of people. I have no doubt that the professional planners within the Bureau of Transport Economics and the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development are well aware of the consequences which flow from the complexity of our present urban society. Many of our country areas are undergoing revolutionary changes in the pattern of land use, the distribution of people and the size and character of rural towns and cities. The first report from the Australian Population and Immigration Council produced evidence which requires a total reappraisal of the plans for the future development of our major cities, of growth centres and of population distribution and redistribution.

The physical infrastructure required for urban development is costly. The social infrastructure for a community also is expensive. Some would argue that social facilities are more important for the development of the community than the supply of the physical infrastructure, such as sewerage, roads, power and public transport. If, however, we are to ask the Bureau of Transport Economics to play its part in planning or advising on the future shape of our urban society it must have available to it all the relevant expertise which is necessary to create an environment which will allow the majority of citizens to fulfill their ambitions as members of the community. Accordingly, the Bureau will take note of population trends away from the major cities in this country. It will avail itself of information which indicates that the growing use of drugs and alcohol causes approximately 50 per cent of all deaths from road accidents and that the cost of operating motor vehicles may ultimately cause a major move to the use of public transport. The Bureau also will take account of sociological studies of the impact of freeways on the built environment. It must recognise that personalised automated transport systems may be built into Australian cities and between cities. These and many other aspects of life in the latter part of the twentieth century will have significance in the future planning of transport requirements in Australia.

The old Bureau of Transport Economics carried out a number of wide ranging studies on airports, harbours, public transport systems and shipping but because no one mode of transport can be compartmentalised the old Bureau of Transport Economics necessarily overlapped areas of responsibility of the Bureau of Roads. In the light of this approach to the future planning of our communities the amalgamation of the 2 Bureaus appeared inevitable. Those working in the Bureau must not, however, be locked into an ivory tower. To properly advise the Minister and therefore this Government it will be imperative that the Bureau confer with other Commonwealth and State departments and instrumentalities and organisations and individuals in the private sector. It would appear that problems already have been encountered in the establishment of strategic planning committees with representatives from all levels of government. I submit that if total planning is not undertaken now we will repeat the many mistakes already seen in the development of this country to date and the mistakes made in other developing countries. Not only must we apply the lessons learnt from the past but also we must create the mechanism which is necessary to act quickly on advice which has identified past mistakes or future benefits.

The multi-modal approach to transport was recognised by the past Chairman of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, Mr H. T. Loxton, as recently as 7 March 1977. Mr Loxton gave evidence to the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in its inquiry into the urban environment. He said:

Our suggestion is, that if we can start by bringing all transport together in each State, so that this can be looked at by the State and the Commonwealth together then we are starting on the process of getting some co-ordinated plan. The urban area is an extremely complex area. I think all our information leads us to the belief that you cannot really look at any single project in an urban area on its own.

Worldwide evidence suggests that the conflict between cars and cities in its more acute and unplanned forms has led to congestion, pollution and the dehumanising of community life for large sections of the community. Overseas experience suggests that attempts to eliminate traffic jams through building more highways are far from a panacea and that public transport solutions have only partly met community requirements. On the other hand, innovative and thoughtful development of transport policy in both existing and newly planned cities has led to transportation networks which offer communities well located jobs, housing and services. Reconciling the automobile with its surroundings and assuring everyone access to high quality public transportation is recognised as an essential element of future transportation policy. The pursuit of purely transport efficiency rather than effectiveness criteria will inevitably lead to conflict between transport and the community to the detriment of the community at large.

Preference for the automobile over public transport has resulted from a variety of physical, financial and psychological factors. A car is a means of escaping from the city, of finding a home where land is less costly, and of expanding the opportunity to find a job. On the other hand, public transport in Australia has offered increasingly poor services as competition with the automobile has caused chronic financial difficulties. The industry has lost travellers, and patronage in the 1970s was less than it was in the early 1950s, despite the gains in urban population that have added potential customers. Public policy in Australia supports the automotive revolution through extensive outlays on streets, highways and freeways. In 1975 public sector capital investment for transportation by all units of government has been estimated at $ 1,000m, or $80 per capita, and over $788m of that was spent on roads and streets. These outlays reflect the degree of dependence on highways for freight and passenger movement in Australia and the amount of influence public policy has had on how the nation’s transportation system has developed.

Despite the efforts to accommodate motor vehicles in cities, for millions of Australians commuting by automobiles is a headache, and often there is no other convenient choice. The lack of satisfactory service by either car or transit exposes people twice daily to the congestion and tension that have come to be an accepted condition of urban living. It has been considered that maintaining a mimimum acceptable environment for the big cities of the advanced Western nations, including Australia, in the last third of the 20th century is an awesome challenge. I have no doubt that the Bureau will meet that challenge. The real test will depend on governmentFederal, State and local. We must plan totally and implement policies which are intelligent, policies which take note of the desire for quality of urban and rural life and the use of energy resources.

For Australia transportation solutions in the future will inevitably be bound up with the development of new urban communities and the redevelopment of existing cities. Discovering solutions to the transportation problems of cities calls for a broader view of transportation as a sub-system of the larger system of urban living in which the origins and destinations of travel are subject to manipulation. It is in our power to arrive at urban transport solutions by changing the nature of the problem. Planned communities, by rejecting the outdated concept of separating urban life into compartments by zoning, have demonstrated that the transportation problem can be contained by focusing on nontransportation solutions that emphasise accessibility rather than movement. Urban design and environment are the means of reconciling city and car and reorienting public transit. Equally significantly, transportation can help to create the urban designs and environmental changes necessary to make the transport system work. In both new and redeveloped cities conventional street systems can be transformed to space saving patterns that make room for public parks and playgrounds, pedestrian oriented shopping centres, the multi-block urban complex containing housing, office space, recreation areas, and the new industrial estates and parklands.

The question is whether the urban growth to come will be allowed to happen without forethought or whether it will be planned for pleasant and efficient living. Transportation capabilities provide powerful tools for rebuilding obsolete cities, moving out of the old congestion, and taking possession of the land for new patterns of urban living. If we opt for unplanned cities and unbridled use of cars, the traffic jam will be absolute and the environment intolerable. However, co-ordination and integration of planned urban systems and their transportation sub-systems will yield many types of new cities, large and small, with varying mixtures of transportation. But the city built for urban man will maximise the ability to move while minimising the need for unnecessary motion, and in the process will use the transport system to further the goals of the community. The basic objectives will be housing, public services, and environment. They will allow people to live well and not just to move better. They will create not only a mobile population but also an accessible city. This revised approach to transport offers significant potential for reducing the massive level of investment and thus demands made on government.

Future Commonwealth policies will require careful consideration of overseas experience. Since almost 70 per cent of Australians already live in established cities, it is important to recognise that a primary task for transportation policy is to help in the redevelopment and reconditioning of the existing environment. The prospects for doing so are strengthened by the fact that so much of the urban area is absorbed by streets and because, as many urban redevelopment projects reveal, street space can be effectively used to create new neighbourhood patterns and more efficient organisation of the community. The space devoted to streets usually represents the largest portion of publicly owned urban land. That is a matter that is likely to receive attention in the proposed Commonwealth land costs inquiry. In Australia, where 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the cityscape is comprised of streets, the combination of roadways and parking facilities in central areas may absorb more than half of the available space. These are the parts of the city most readily subject to public efforts to change the environment. They are also the areas seen and used the most, and their improvement, when combined with other projects, can accomplish major redevelopment.

Combining transportation with other development programs through the use of air rights over highways is also a means of supplying needed space at economical prices and of overcoming the unwanted environmental effects of expressways. Future transportation policies will require recognition that transportation is not an end in itself but is integrally related to community development. Solutions to transportation problems may not necessarily lie within transportation technology and pricing. The forces behind the demand for movement are complex and subject to manipulation. An understanding of these complexities and their inter-relationships in an Australian context is fundamental to the development of transportation policies.

I conclude by reiterating that the Bureau of Transport Economics will be of value to this Government and to those who will seek its advice and assistance only if it retains its independence. We are assured by the Minister that that will be so. Accordingly I have no reason to doubt that the credibility and value of the Bureau will continue into the future in the same way as the value of its 2 predecessors was recognised in the past. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I think one point that has been lost during the course of this debate- it ought to be recognised by those people listening to the debate- is that all the transportation ills in this country were created not during the 3 years of Labor administration but during 28 years of maladministration for which the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) was greatly responsible. As has been indicated by my colleagues in an earlier debate on this subject, the Opposition is opposed to the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads (Repeal) Bill 1977 in the form in which it is before the Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is to repeal the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Act 1964 and to abolish the independent statutory body known as the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads to enable the establishment of the new and expanded Bureau within the Department of Transport. That new body, to be known as the Bureau of Transport Economics, will be an amalgam of the Bureau of Transport Economics established by government decision in 1970 and the existing Commonwealth Bureau of Roads established by legislation in 1964.

Let it be made perfectly clear that we on this side of the House do not oppose the concept of amalgamating the 2 bodies but we are concerned that as a result of the legislation the independence and impartiality of the new body will be at serious risk. We are particularly concerned that significant sections of local government are opposed to the form of legislation and emphasise that if the new body is to function properly it should be acceptable to all 3 tiers of government in this country. It is quite clear that it is not acceptable to the important tier of local government, and that should be sufficient reason for the

Australian Government to rethink at least its attitude to the Bill.

My colleagues have, earlier in this debate, drawn attention to the expressed opposition of local government and produced evidence of that opposition. I attempted today to bring further evidence of local government disquiet before the House. The Municipal Association of Victoria could not put its position more plainly when it says that it views with alarm the decision to amalgamate the Bureau of Transport Economics and the Bureau of Roads with the Department of Transport. Like the Australian Labor Party Opposition, the Municipal Association of Victoria pays tribute to the way in which the Bureau of Roads has fulfilled its statutory responsibilities with a high level of credibility, impartiality and professionalism. A decision has been taken which was referred to earlier this evening by the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins). It has been claimed that one of the reasons for all these problems has been the jealousies of professionalism. I think that the Government ought to be serious about this matter and set those sorts of issues aside. The Minister for Transport ought to take very heavily on his shoulders the responsibility for consideration of that matter.

Indeed, the same sort of respect for both the Bureau of Roads and the Bureau of Transport Economics has been expressed by speakers in the debate from the Government side of the House. There appears to be little between us in our attitude to the work of these 2 bodies during their existence. What concerns us is that the attributes which have attracted almost universal praise will not be allowed to continue if the Government ‘s intentions as outlined in this Bill are carried out. There is a widespread fear that the standards built up over some time will be destroyed. It is a fear of the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, and certainly it is shared by municipal councils in my electorate which have contacted me indicating support for the position adopted by the Municipal Association of Victoria. These bodies support inter-modal consideration of transport problems. But they also strongly believe that this must be undertaken within a structure and environment which ensure impartiality. They strongly believe that the method of implementation proposed by the Government does not provide that assurance.

Local government wants the Government to reconsider the proposed amalgamation and to agree to the formation of an independent body. They set out certain criteria for the achievement of this objective, namely, the establishment of an independent body. Firstly, they say, as we say, that the new body must be acceptable to all 3 tiers of government and to the transport industry. Quite clearly, the propositions of the Government in relation to this issue are not acceptable. Secondly, they believe that the new body should be established by legislation in a manner similar to the way in which the Bureau of Roads was originally established. Thirdly, they say that the new body should be independent to ensure the maintenance of a high level of credibility. Fourthly, they say that the existing level of cooperative consultation and effort demonstrates co-operative federalism at work, if that is what it all means. I wonder. The Municipal Association of Victoria goes on to say that it agrees that intermodal consideration of transport problems is essential if governments are to arrive at decisions which will best allocate limited resources to an almost limitless task. It does not object to the amalgamation itself but it is concerned with the likely harmful effect of an amalgamation which will absorb a truly independent body into a departmental structure which, by definition, can never be truly independent. This is indicative of the Government’s attitude and all this secretive investigation. We have had one investigation conducted by Professor Wilson within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs since 1970. Nothing could be more secretive than that because he has never produced a report.

Transport issues and particularly roads have to take account of the requirements of Federal, State and local governments as well as the inherent economic inequalities and varying needs within and between the States. That is why the new body must be acceptable to all 3 levels of government. The only way to achieve this is to ensure that this new body is established by legislation in the way in which the Bureau of Roads was originally established. The then Minister for Shipping and Transport, Mr Freeth, made this very point when the Bureau of Roads was established. He said:

The Commonwealth must be in a position to see the problem as a national whole and not simply as the sum of a particular view of it. We felt that this could best be undertaken by a statutory body, to be called the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, responsible to the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

Maybe the present Minister for Transport is rather reluctant to take that responsibility, but this view ought to be expressed to him openly when he is making up his mind, if he has a mind to make up. The Government has made much fuss in the present debate about attitudes of the then Opposition when the Bureau was established. It has tried, with the usual degree of inadequacy, to use old statements to discredit the present attitudes of the Opposition. But from the statement by the then Minister for Shipping and Transport it can be seen that the then government intended a body which was independent and capable of taking an overall view. We maintain that the present Government should adopt the same attitude now.

A new body, independently structured, would ensure the maintenance of a high level of credibility in the eyes of State governments, State road authorities and local government. The proposed absorption of an amalgamated body into a Federal departmental structure would destroy the authority’s credibility. It would be another example of the Government stepping backwards rather than forwards into history. In particular, it would be a backward step in the development of shared responsibility between the 3 levels of government. Clearly, the new body should be established by legislation and be directly responsible to the Minister. The Minister should take that responsibility.

The Opposition is compelled to ask, along with local government bodies, for answers to the following 3 questions. Firstly, is the proposed amalgamation a bureaucratic grab for power justified on the grounds of short term economies in administrative costs rather than on the grounds of national interest? Secondly, will the amalgamated body command the same support and co-operation now accorded the present independent Bureau of Roads by State and local government road authorities? Thirdly, will the amalgamation lead to the same situation which led the Menzies coalition Government when the Bureau was established to identify the need for truly independent advice to the Government?

At the moment, our view must be that the answer to all 3 questions would be a resounding no’. But it would not take much of a shift in opinion for the answer to be ‘yes’ in all 3 cases. It would involve no loss of face for that shift in opinion to be made. It would simply demonstrate, possibly for the first time, that the Government is prepared to go to those people on whom it must depend for co-operation, many of whom were beguiled into supporting it in 1975. I am sure they will never do it again. Otherwise, cooperative federalism- I place a question mark after that term- is exposed once more for the sham it has always been under the feudal approach of the Fraser Government in other areas of national policy. What is it going to mean?

Once again the Government will pass on responsibility. It will pass on responsibility in the area of foreign policy and other identified areas. But State and local governments will be identifying their responsibilities in the taxes that they impose on other people. We surely must make that point very strongly.

Mr colleague, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) has indicated to the House already that whilst the Opposition opposes this repeal Bill, it is not opposed to the concept of amalgamation. Indeed, we believe that all the indications are that the time for amalgamation is appropriate, even desirable, given the expressed need by staffs of both organisations for a strong multi-modal transport advisory body at the Federal level. But that will not be achieved by the means proposed by the Government. My information is that the very staffs which see virtue in amalgamation as such are not happy about amalgamation as proposed by the Government. We have heard much in this debate about the respect in which the staffs are held for the manner in which they carry out their duties. I join with others in paying tribute to them.

The strength of any organisation lies in its staff, and the Minister in introducing this Bill places great store on the question of staff and the production of a strong integrated research body to come out of the amalgamation. But he has to take his consideration of staff much further and see whether the method of amalgamation he proposes does have the support of the existing staff. He really ought to be discussing with them and their bodies the way in which this ought to happen. My information is that it does not, and there is evidence of staff turnovers since the announcement in May last year that the 2 bodies were to be merged. There is evidence that the reason for the staff turnover is the manner in which the amalgamation is proposed. Staff turnover means an erosion of the organisational strength of the organisations. Unhappy staff means that they will not function in the way they have been accustomed to function under the existing system. Now, if the purpose of the amalgamation is to improve efficiency and reduce wastage then everything should be done to ensure that that objective is achieved.

It is a self-defeating exercise to go through the motions of a desired amalgamation when you neglect to achieve amalgamation to the general satisfaction of all those involved. As I have said, at least 2 categories of people are involved. Local government and staff are eminently dissatisfied with the way things are going. Remaining on the question of staff, my information is that Commonwealth Bureau of Roads staff are getting strong indications that information flows from State road authorities and local government to the new Bureau of Transport Economics- the amalgamated body- will be more limited than the current flow to the Bureau of Roads. Staff see the new Bureau basically as part of the departmental machine. One of the main reasons that staff of the Bureau of Roads has performed with such a high level of responsibility, such efficiency and such success is that they have not been part of departmental machinery. They have placed a value on the independence which flows from being part of a statutory body, set up under its own legislation and reporting directly to the Minister. Maybe the Minister is afraid to receive that information because if he does he may be bound to accept it. That is his problem. I believe that what the Opposition is putting, and in particular what I am putting, ought to be given serious consideration.

Clearly that independence, that zeal, is worth preserving and could easily be preserved if the Government modifies its thinking to effect the amalgamation by separate legislation. It is not such a gigantic step to take. It retains the original intention of amalgamating the work of 2 worthwhile bodies, with the desirable objective of greater efficiency and reduced wastage of resources. I put to the Minister that he ought to consider amendments to the legislation in the Committee stage. It seems that the Minister is more concerned with talking to the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) than with listening to the debate. I would imagine that that is about as much notice as he will take of any of the pleas made to him. If they were the only objectives of the legislation, it would be unobjectionable, if it were carried out in the proper way and did not override the clearly expressed complaints of people intimately involved with the effects of the legislation. But it does attempt to override those complaints. It flies in the face of objections conscientiously raised by people and by organisations of some substance and significance in the area.

The Minister still prattles on with the honourable member for McMillan. If the Government persists in forcing through the legislation in its present form, it must be suspected of motives other than the apparently quite respectable motives of improving efficiency and reducing waste. The arrogance of the Minister just has to be seen to be believed. During discussion of this legislation the Minister has sat in the House and has talked to the honourable member for

McMillan. He has not paid any attention to questions raised in the last 5 minutes. His acknowledgment of what has been said may be to ridicule me. But really he would be ridiculing what I am putting forward as an alternative suggestion for the consideration of the Minister. I repeat that if the Government persists in forcing through the legislation in its present form- the Minister continues with his conversation- it must be suspected of motives other than the apparently quite respectable motives of improving efficiency and reducing waste. If the Government does not heed the objections of this significant group it must be judged guilty of, at best -

Debate interrupted.

page 960

ADJOURNMENT

Education-Australian Opera Company: Mr Donald Smith- Staffing of Schools- Electoral Redistributions

Mr SPEAKER:

-It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 10 March 1977, 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I would like to inform the House that today, at 12.43 p.m., at Frances Perry House in the Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, a boy was born to Kay, the wife of Gary Johnson. The boy is named Travis Keith. That boy will grow up in an increasingly uncertain world. Unless there is a change of political direction over the next 2 decades, this young man, although a baby at the moment, will grow up in a world in which he may not have the opportunity to have the full benefit of the education system which should be available to all people in Australia. His opportunity for an education may be limited to the depth of his parents’ pockets. His opportunity to enjoy all the benefits of a civilised society such as an Australian should expect may be limited to what his parents can afford to pay.

Mr King:

– What about his grandfather?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That interjection from a member of the National Country Party illustrates exactly what I am trying to put to the House. The grandfather of this child probably will be able to meet the costs of all these things, but this child is only the epitome of all children born in Australia. This child may be more fortunate than most. I put to the House tonight that it should not adjourn but should stay in session until it resolves how children such as Travis Keith Johnson shall progress in this world. I refer to those children who do not have the advantages that this child may have. Children should have equal opportunities to obtain an education. This advantage should not be limited to those whose grandfathers can afford to pay for them. They should be able to enjoy equal opportunity to avail themselves of a community health system, not one that is restricted to children whose grandfathers can afford to pay for them. Areas such as education and health are the social responsibility of all Australians. The benefits of all these things should be equally available to all people.

The snide remarks that come from the snide members of the National Country Party are not very helpful. Those of us who are aware of this situation realise that there are conservative people in our community who still rely upon the depth of people’s pockets to determine the benefits that shall accrue to them. I dissociate myself from that idea, as do the members of the Party I support. It is clear from the comments made by people on my geographic left that there are people in this community who do not agree with the concept I mentioned but who agree with the concept that people should be educated only according to the wealth of their parents or their grandparents and who agree that people should enjoy good health only according to the cost that their parents and grandparents can afford. They ignore the fact that there are people in our community who have disabilities. These people on my geographic left pay no heed to disadvantaged people. It is important for children of the age of my grandchild -

Mr Sullivan:

– How heavy was the child?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-He weighs 7 lb 1 oz. He will grow up without an ounce of fat on him and will be a heavyweight champion of Australia. There is nothing surer. It is important that the people of the age group of my grandson and others ought to come forward in the world and be accorded equal opportunity irrespective of the advantages of having as a grandfather a member of the House of Representatives for years to come. I make this point to the House. I think that the House should not adjourn tonight until it decides that benefits ought to be equal for all Australian people, irrespective of their station of birth.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think it is unlikely that the House will remain in session until the request of the honourable member for Burke is agreed to. Despite that, I am sure that all honourable members will join with me in congratulating the new granddaddy.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I draw to the attention of the House a dispute that exists between a constituent of mine and the Australian Opera Company. The gentleman concerned is Mr Donald Smith, who is one of the world’s finest tenors. He resigned from the Australian Opera Company last year following a dispute over matters which have, to a great extent, reached the public knowledge through the media. Since that time, there has been an announcement of changes in the management of the company. The House will be aware that Mr Smith was awarded the Order of the British Empire for services to music, that he is a tenor of a particular character- I think he is termed a pinto tenor. He is particularly skilled at grand opera and in the dramatic singing required in grand opera.

Mr Jull:

– He is brilliant.

Mr NEIL:

– The honourable member for Bowman said that he is brilliant and I understand that that is so. I have never had the pleasure of hearing him sing.

Mr Newman:

– Hear, hear!

Mr NEIL:

– The Minister says ‘hear, hear’. About eight or nine years ago Mr Smith returned to Australia after having been a member of some of the finest companies in the world. He came back to Australia principally because he is an Australian national, because this is his home, because he loves opera and because he sought to return to Australia in order to give of his best and to ensure that his talents were not lost to this country and that, in some way, he could be an example to other young Australians. I am not sure of his entire career since then. I think he has been out of the country for some time. However, he did appear with the Australian Opera and was until last year appearing with that company under a particular contract. I have noticed that he has a tremendous following and his resignation from the Opera Company caused a large amount of public comment and a great deal of regret. Since that time, he has encouraged other people to pursue opera. He has travelled throughout Australia giving charity performances but he has not conducted or been engaged in the conduct of grand opera. I will not canvass the merits of the dispute. I do not know what the merits were one way or the other. All I know is that where a dispute of this nature occurs and where it is possible to find a settlement, a settlement must be found. I do not believe that it is impossible to settle this matter.

I have no doubt that Mr Smith, like many other persons of extreme ability and the temperament of the artist, probably is at times a little difficult to deal with. However, he has offered to go back to the company on the same terms and conditions under which he was previously employed. He tells me that that offer has been refused. He has been offered a number of performances only on a casual basis in the later months of this year. He states that the casting of the company is for 12 to 14 months ahead. The new general manager is apparently not due in Australia for some time. The present board of the Australian Opera Company takes the view at this time that a full contract cannot be extended to Mr Smith. The obvious problem that arises is that he will not be able to be cast within the program of the company for its future activities in the next 12 months or so. He took a tremendous plunge in resiging over what he considered were matters of principle. It is not easy in this world for the dissident to live, particularly within the conclaves of established institutions. There must not be any suspicion that he is being prejudiced because of the stand that he took. I have no knowledge of the dispute. I do not know whether or not that the stand that he took in any way would prejudice him with the board. I would hope not. However any appearance of such bias should be obliterated or resolved. It is the responsibility of all parties in this case to come to a proper compromise and to ensure that Mr Smith, who will otherwise have to return to Europe and once again sing in the finest opera houses in Europe, is made available to the Australian public and made available as an example to young artists.

The Minister assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts (Mr Staley) has seen Mr Smith previously. I understand that he is doing his best to bring about a settlement although it is not part of his responsibility. I particularly commend the Minister for the approach he has adopted to this matter. I exhort him to use his good offices to bring about a sensible and reasonable compromise which will ultimately and obviously be to the benefit of the Australian public.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-One of the difficult problems that anybody in charge of education has to deal with is the staffing of schools. I am particularly worried about this matter. Tonight I want to talk about 2 high schools in my electorate which face this problem. When school numbers fall the principle of the school must automatically realise that the percentage of staff that he has will be downgraded and therefore he has to reallocate his staff to the number of children in the school. That is not a bad principle. I am deeply concerned about 2 schools in my area.

Mr Young:

– You have 2-up schools.

Mr YATES:

– I ask the honourable member to allow me to look after my own electors. I am sure he can honourably look after his. Doveton High School is not in a very advantageous position nor is Hallam High School. They have inherited a problem of dealing with those who have difficulty in English and communication. They have taken a great deal of trouble to provide programs of education which will help to assist children coming from other schools. They now want to be able to improve their means of teaching English and English communication. It is rather sad to think therefore that the Government of Victoria has had difficulty in providing not only these 2 schools but also another primary school in Springvale with remedial teachers in English. I do not understand how this has happened. I do not understand why the funds for the teaching of remedial English and for teaching other remedial subjects cannot be provided by the Government of Victoria.

I have had discussions with the staff of all the schools concerned. On Thursday last there was a meeting of all the teachers from these areas at the Camberwell Civic Centre. The meeting brought to my attention the problems affecting their schools. I feel that the Minister for Education in another place, Senator Carrick, ought to be able, through the Schools Commission, to provide funds for those schools which are in a disadvantaged position or which are trying to help pupils who have difficulty in English, mathematics or migrant languages. That is the first major problem. I cannot understand why funds are not available for this essential element in schooling in Victoria.

I also understand that when an American physical education teacher from Minnesota who is at Doveton High School goes back to the United States of America he cannot be replaced. Why can a physical education teacher not be replaced? If an English teacher leaves why can he also not be replaced? I therefore told the school, the parents and the school councils involved that I think it is not correct that the Minister for Education, through the Schools Commission, cannot assist schools which have these serious problems in staffing. I have heard also that perhaps the way in which some of the members of the staff have dealt with their problems by appearing on television and by writing to the Press has not helped their case. But I think that anybody in the field of education should be able to express his views freely. All I ask tonight is that the Commonwealth Minister for Education and the Minister for Education in Victoria do their best to assist the Doveton High School, the Hallam High School and the school in Springvale with their staffing problems because the provision of adequate staffing is urgent, necessary and important for the children in my electorate.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I have just been notified by the Attorney-General of South Australia that today we have come another step along the path of trying to establish electoral justice in South Australia. The Privy Council has thrown out the challenge to the validity of the legislation which will bring about a major electoral redistribution in that State and thus end more than 100 years of electoral injustice. I think it is a great thing not just for the Government that has brought about this change in the laws but also for all the people in South Australia who have consistently voted against governments which have tried to introduce boundaries which favour their own political parties. I raise this matter tonight because I think it is important and relevant, particularly now when we see what is happening in the Federal sphere with regard to electoral redistribution. We have come from an almost feudal state in South Australia as far as people’s attitudes or the attitude of the rulers of that State to the rights of people are concerned to the stage today where obviously those who observe the electoral laws of the various States and of the Commonwealth would regard South Australia as being the guiding light on the rights of people.

I well recall the attack made by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley). He said that the laws that had been drawn up in South Australia were designed to favour the present Government. What he did not tell the Parliament, of course, was that no one voted against the terms of reference of the redistribution when they were presented to the House of Assembly or to the Legislative Council in South Australia. In fact, the people who had been appointed as commissioners were none other than the Electoral Commissioner, the Surveyor-General and one other person whose name I cannot bring to mind. It would do the Minister for the Capital Territory well if I drew his attention to the speech made by Senator Hall in the Senate following the Minister’s attack on those people so that he could see what Senator Hall had to say in relation to the redistribution which has taken place in South Australia.

To give some idea of the impact it is having in that State, until 1965, for every electorate in the metropolitan area there were 2 electorates in country areas, irrespective of the fact that 66 per cent of the people of that State lived in the city. Under the regime of Sir Thomas Playford it was impossible for the Labor Party to win an election. It was only the spread of the metropolitan area into the country electorates, that eventually allowed the Labor Party, with 56 per cent of the vote, to win by one seat. In South Australia there will now be one vote one value. In the Legislative Council the situation was even worse. There were 5 districts with 4 members, and it was always the case of 16 conservative members and 4 Labor members. The only reason there were 4 Labor members was because the conservative parties decided not to contest one electorate. Today the whole State of South Australia comprises the electorate which, at each State election, elects 1 1 members of the Legislative Council. The party that receives the majority vote receives the majority of members. So we have come a long way between 1 965, when the first Labor Government for 33 years was elected, and today when we would hope the final attempt by those who want to continue with the old, unjust laws has come to an end.

I hope that all the people in South Australia will now accept that it is right to have one vote one value in the House of Assembly and that it is right and correct in a bicameral system that the Legislative Council itself be elected on the most just terms. In fact I believe this will lead for the first time to a Labor majority in that House after the next elections. An enormous step has been taken by the South Australian Government. I think great credit is due to the Premier, who has led the fight for 25 years, and the very talented new Attorney-General of that State, Peter Duncan, for the success that the Government in that State has achieved. I only wish the national Parliament would be cognisant of what has happened so that we could establish the same just, acceptable laws for the people throughout Australia in electing the national Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.51 p.m.

page 964

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Social Security: Pensions and Benefits (Question No. 4)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What is the cost of replacing the means test with the income test on each of the pensions and benefits paid by the Department of Social Security.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

In replacing the means test (income plus assets) on pensions and supporting mothers benefit with an income test only, special transitional arrangements were adopted to ensure that no existing pensioner or beneficiary would suffer a reduction in existing pension or benefit payments as a result of the change. The cost of the change-over on this basis for 1976-77 was estimated to be $7 million.

Social Security: Pensions and Benefits (Question No. 7)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

How many persons previously excluded from pensions or benefits because they failed the means test have now qualified for pensions or benefits as a result of the introduction of the income test.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The information sought is not available but it is considered that the number of persons who would have qualified for pensions because of the substitution of an income test for the former means test would be small.

Commonwealth Contracts: Electoral Division of Perth (Question No. IS)

Mr McLean:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the total value of Commonwealth contracts let in the Electoral Division of Perth for which’ construction is expected to be completed in 1 976-77.
  2. What (a) are the projects and (b) is the value of the individual projects referred to in pan ( 1 ).
  3. What is the total value of Commonwealth contracts presently being undertaken in the Electoral Division of Penh but which are not expected to be completed in 1 976-77.
  4. What are the projects referred to in part (3).
Mr McLeay:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The total value of Commonwealth contracts let by the Department of Construction in the Electoral Division of

Perth for which construction is expected to be completed in 1976-77 is $835,711.

  1. (a) and (b) The projects, and their individual values, referred to in part ( 1 ) are:
  1. The value of projects presently being undertaken. but which will not be completed in 1976-77, total $ 1 2,948,926.
  2. The projects referred to in part (3) are Wellington Telephone Exchange ($11,655,696) and erection of News and Film Complex at Perth for the ABC ($ 1 ,293,230).

Pensioners: Personal Income Tax (Question No. 20)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Will he consider increasing the sum a single pensioner, without dependants, receiving the full pension, can earn before being liable for income tax payments from the present $ 1 1 to $20 per week, which is the sum that a single pensioner can earn before his pension of $43.50 per week is reduced.
  2. Will he consider increasing the sum a married couple can earn before being liable for income tax from $23 to $34.50 per week, which is the sum that a married couple can earn before their pension of $72.50 per week is reduced.
  3. ) Will allowances be made for those pensioners with dependants so that they will not be disadvantaged as compared to those without dependants in any restructuring of the tax scale for pensioners.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( I ), (2) and (3) The Government has the taxation treatment of pensioners under study in the context of its general review of the personal income tax system.

Commonwealth Public Works: Electoral Division of Prospect (Question No. 46)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What Commonwealth public works are (a) under construction and (b) proposed in the Electoral Division of Prospect.
  2. What is the estimated (a) total cost of the projects, (b) cost of each individual project and (c) completion date of each project.
Mr McLeay:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2). The following is a list of Commonwealth public works arranged by the Department of Construction and currently under construction or proposed in the Electoral Division of Prospect for 1976-77:

Income Tax: Trust Arrangements (Question No. 58)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can a taxpayer whose taxable income includes income from say property, shares and the like, transfer such assets to a trustee company specially set up by the taxpayer for the purpose of distributing the income from such assets to nontaxable members of his own family.
  2. Is it a fact that in cases where the beneficiaries’ total income remains less than $2,000 a year, no tax would be paid on such income and that, where this applied to say a wife and 3 dependent children, a total of $8,000 of otherwise taxable income per year would become free of tax.
  3. Apart from the technical loss of equity and the fact that in certain circumstances the taxpayer engineering such a transaction would not be able to claim the dependants’ deduction from his income return and that he may have to pay a once only gift duty, what other disabilities would he suffer.
  4. What would be the amount of tax avoided by making a transfer of assets earning say $8,000 of taxable income per year in a case such as set out in part (2) if the taxpayer had other taxable income of (a) $10,000, (b) $15,000, (c) $20,000 and (d) $25,000.
  5. Does he intend to take any action to close this loophole in the tax laws.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is legally open to anyone to settle assets on trust so that the income from them accrues for the benefit of those who are beneficiaries named in the trust. If the arrangements are given proper legal effect the income is no longer that of the settlor and cannot, except in some special circumstances specified in section 102 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, be included as assessable income of the settlor for income tax purposes.
  2. No person with an income of less than $2,605 is liable to pay tax on that income.
  3. Trust arrangements involve a real, not merely technical, loss of equity. In the income tax context there is no concessional rebate for a wife whose income exceeds $2,170. Where the income is less than this amount but greater than $170 the concessional allowance otherwise available is reduced. There is now no concessional rebate available in respect of dependent children, regardless of income. Gift duty is payable on any gift if the value of that gift when aggregated with other gifts made within 1 8 months, whether before or after the date of the gift, is in excess of $ 10,000.
  4. If a taxpayer divested himself of assets and income in the circumstances envisaged, the income tax payable by him would become less by the following amounts:

    1. $3575.00
    2. $4225.00
    3. $4670.00
    4. $5037.50
  5. ) Ways of dealing with trust situations in the income tax context are dealt with in the Asprey Report (Chapters 1 1 and 15) which the Government has under study at present.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Proposed Computer Network (Question No. 82)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been made towards the establishment of a computer network linking all offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service as was envisaged by his predecessor but one prior to his dismissal.
  2. Is it a fact that such a network would facilitate the matching of job vacancies and applications by reducing applicant matching time, increase out-of-area placement, reduce turnover or rate of registration, increase penetration and hence vacancy filling rates, and improve analysis of labour market information for review and formulation of manpower policy.
  3. Is it a fact that regardless of whether the work now carried out by the Commonwealth Employment Service is under the jurisdiction of his Department or of some statutory body it will remain impossible to overcome existing difficulties without the assistance of up-to-date computerisation facilities.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A decision not to proceed with the installation of a computer network linking all offices of the CES was taken by the previous Government in July 1 975 pending a review of cost benefit aspects in the light of capital expenditure and developmental costs involved. However, an examination of the equipment and system requirements, including data processing and electronic techniques, is one of the matters which Mr J. D. Norgard has been asked to consider in the Review of the CES which he is conducting.
  2. Assuming the computer network provides on line facilities and there is speedy input of information about applicants seeking employment and vacancies notified by employers, it should help to decrease the time which vacancies remain unfilled and applicants remain unemployed. A network should also provide more timely and disaggregated information on the activities of the CES.
  3. This question is being considered by Mr Norgard in the context of the abovementioned Review.

Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Figures (Question No. 87)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. Are seasonally adjusted unemployment figures still being compiled for internal departmental purposes.
  2. ) If so, do these figures include school-leavers.
  3. Will he make these figures available to the media.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) Late in September my Department received a discussion paper from the Australian Statistician, outlining a revised method for calculating new seasonal factors for CES registered unemployed excluding school-leavers. The Statistician has advised that the factors offer a better seasonal adjustment than was provided previously. Figures are being computed on this basis to assess their possible reliability for seasonal adjustment purposes. The Statistician has also indicated that he is not prepared to provide at this stage a revised method for determining seasonal adjustment of the registered unemployed school-leaver series.
  2. As I am sure the honourable member will agree it would be quite misleading to publish figures the reliability of which has not been established. That aside, I intend to continue my practice of referring only to the actual figures of registered umemployed in my monthly press release on CES figures. This, I believe, avoids uncertainty and confusion. It has the unanimous support of all State Labour Ministers, and was re-affirmed at our meeting on 12 November 1976.

Forecasts of Unemployment Figures (Question No. 120)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Does the Treasury provide him with forecasts, by quarter, of the numbers of persons expected to be unemployed for up to 1 8 months into the future.
  2. If so, what is his best estimate, based on Treasury forecasts, of the numbers of persons who will be unemployed in 3, 6 and 12 months’ time.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As the honourable member will know, the Treasury does regularly provide me with forecasts and assessments of the outlook for a range of economic indicators, including unemployment. However, such forecasts are not necessarily prepared for quarterly intervals over the forthcoming 18 months.
  2. In presenting the 1976-77 Budget, the Government stated (page 25, Statement No. 2) that its expectations were for ‘only a gradual reduction in the rate of unemployment, with little if any of this appearing during calendar 1976. Prospects for continuing gains in the unemployment area do, of course, strengthen into the following financial year, 1977-78’. As stated at the time, that outcome was predicated on continued moderation in the flow-on, via indexation, of price increases into wages, In the post-devaluation context, the extent of the improvement in unemployment depends critically on decisions in the wage fixation arena.

Department of Defence: Civilian and Military Staff (Question No. 125)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

How many First, Second, Third and Fourth Division officers are there in the Department of Defence, and what is the breakdown between civilian and military staff members.

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

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

As at 31 January 1977, there were 32 234 civilian staff members in the Department of Defence. Details are as follows:

As at 31 January 1977, details of military staff members were as follows:

Relocation Assistance Scheme (Question No. 127)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons have been relocated in employment under the Relocation Assistance Scheme since its inception.
  2. ) What is the total amount of relocation allowances paid to these persons.
  3. How many relocated persons remained in their jobs following payment of the allowances.
  4. Is it the intention of the Department to continue surveillance of those relocated to ascertain to what extent the Scheme is being exploited.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) From its inception on1 October 1976 to 28 February 1 977, a total of 1 54 persons had been relocated in employment under the Relocation Assistance Scheme.
  2. A total of $109,437 in relocation allowances has been paid to these persons.
  3. and (4) The Department is following up all persons relocated to discover whether or not they are still working in the job to which they were relocated, 3 months after moving. This is part of an overall review of the Scheme to evaluate its effectiveness. When the review is complete I expect to make an announcement about the progress and effectiveness of the Scheme.

Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health: Recommendation 24 (Question No. 141)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to recommendation 24 of the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health.
  2. If so, what action is being taken to implement parts (a), (b) and c) of the recommendation.
  3. If not, will he examine the recommendation with a view to its immediate implementation.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) Recommendation (a) reads as follows:

Repatriation hospitals be included within the Hospital Development Program for the relevant State without changing funding arrangements, and more effective means of consultation at operational level be established. ‘

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has already established informal consultation arrangements with health authorities in each State. Major Veterans’ Affairs hospital projects are also discussed with the Hospitals and Health Services Commission; I have directed the Departent to have further discussions with the Commission with a view to introducing more formal arrangements along the lines recommended.

Recommendation (b) reads as follows:

Instructions for Repatriation Local Medical Officers (L.M.O.’s) be reviewed to give greater priority to hospitalisation in the nearest suitable State hospital (country or metropolitan).’

I have instructed my Department to review the criteria for admissions to local hospitals with a view to making greater use of more convenient local facilities where practicable.

Recommendation (c) reads as follows:

Veterans’ Affairs encourage L.M.O. ‘s, in the interests of effective use of services in short supply, to obtain nursing and home care services through the local community health program. ‘

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has been utilising local community health care associated services since 1953 when approval was given for domiciliary nursing to be arranged for patients awaiting hospitalisation. Since that time, the emphasis has changed and active encouragement is given to the maintenance of patients with chronic conditions in their own homes. Where the patient requires services like Meals on Wheels, home help or home repairs etc. and these are available, they are arranged through the local authority or voluntary agency by a departmental social worker at the request of the Local Medical Officer.

In the States where the local community health program exists, any domiciliary care necessary is arranged through the organising body. In South Australia, Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park is the headquarters for the Southern Region and domiciliary care is co-ordinated for all patients in that area.

The Department does not provide its own domiciliary services but utilises those available in the community. Where the patient’s physical condition precludes, attendance at a practitioner’s rooms or the Outpatients’ Departments, a wide range of services can be provided in the home. These include physiotherapy, chiropody, speech pathology, and orthoptic treatment by private practitioners.

I have directed my Department to remind Local Medical Officers of the availability of domiciliary services and advise them of the means by which they can make use of them in their care of Repatriation beneficiaries.

Marketing of Petrol (Question No. 155)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he say in an interview published in the Australian on 2 March 1977 that he thought the structure of the marketing of petrol is a solo marketing operation because there are certain economies of operation involved in solo marketing.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the 4th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum which stated that partly as a consequence of the introduction of solus trading there has been a marked decline in the influence and role of the independent dealer, a very large investment in retail sites and excessive over-building of service stations and evolution of non-price competition rather than price competition.
  3. If so, does the Government agree that solus trading has been to the detriment of the consumer.
  4. In view of other Royal Commission conclusions regarding company-dealer relationships and the very high turnover and dissatisfaction of dealers, does the Government also agree that any economies of operation involved in solo marketing have also been to the detriment of lessee dealers.
  5. Why did he state, in the interview referred to in part ( I ), that he did not see any revolutionary change from the prohibition on the ties in the petrol industry.
  6. Does this statement indicate that the Royal Commission’s findings are incorrect or does it indicate that the Government has not proceeded far enough in reforming discriminatory practices in the oil industry.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3) and (4) As the Government has not announced its decision on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it is not appropriate for me to discuss the findings made in its report.
  3. In its decision on the Shell application for authorisation of various exclusive dealing agreements relating to the supply of petroleum and petroleum products, the Trade Pratices Commission concluded that there would be very little erosion of solo trading if the exclusive dealing agreements were not authorised.
  4. No.

Oil Industry: Discounting (Question No. 156)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Has he or his Department asked the AttorneyGeneral’s Department for a legal opinion on the extent to which the Government can act on discounting in the oil industry without infringing the Trade Practices Act, as was reported in the Financial Review of 28 January 1977.
  2. If so, what sections of the Trade Practices Act was he referring to, and were these sections to be amended in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill introduced in the First Session of this Parliament.
  3. Has the Attorney-General’s Department given its legal opinion. If so, what is the effect of that opinion.
  4. Will the Trade Practices Act Amendment Bill be altered when it is re-introduced into Parliament to enable the

Government to act on price cutting in the oil industry which is based on discriminatory practices.

  1. Did the Royal Commission on Petroleum recommend that section 49 of the Trade Practices Act be amended in line with the Clayton Act of the United States of America to prevent price discrimination.
  2. If he has not asked for a legal opinion on this section will he consider doing so before the Trade Practices Act Amendment Bill is re-introduced into Parliament.
Mr Howard:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Requests by the Government to the Attorney-General ‘s Department ibr legal advice and details of any advice which may be received are confidential to the Government.

  1. The Government is at present considering submissions from interested parties in relation to this discrimination.
  2. Yes.
  3. See the answers to ( 1 ), (2) and (3) above.

Air Pollution: Motor Vehicle Emission (Question No. 163)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the 5th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum (page 868) which concluded that a great deal more needs to be done in Australia on monitoring air pollution levels and determining the extent to which motor vehicles contribute to them, and that control of motor vehicle emissions should be made on a coherent national level rather than on a State level.
  2. If so, does the Government intend to adopt these recommendations. If so, when.
  3. Have any discussions been held with the States on this matter, and will discussions be held in the near future.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. The Sth Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum has been brought to my attention, and I have noted the recommendations to which he refers.
  2. The Report has been forwarded to an InterDepartmental Committee for advice on the matters raised. I wish to point out however that the Commonwealth is already assisting the States to gather air pollution data. This is being done through the National Air Monitoring Program, which has provided the States with funding for air monitoring, and with 3 comprehensively equipped air monitoring caravans to supplement their own monitoring activities. A National Air Quality Data Centre is also being established to pool knowledge on national air quality measurements.
  3. Regular discussions on motor vehicle emissions are held by ATAC (the Australian Transport Advisory Council), and its advisory committee, COMVE (The Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions), both of which include State and Commonwealth representation. COMVE proposes national standards for new vehicle emissions, and upon acceptance by ATAC, these standards are incorporated in Australian Design Rules. Recently the Australian Environment Council, which is also comprised of State and Commonwealth Ministers responsible for environmental matters, has moved to form the Vehicle Emissions and Noise Standards Advisory Committee (VENSAC) to deal with problems associated with vehicle emission control enforcement at the local level.

Use of VIP Aircraft (Question No. 180)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of the VIP flight undertaken by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development on Sunday, 13 February 1977.
  2. What were the reasons given for the use of the VIP flight.
  3. Where was the VIP aircraft based prior to being called to Launceston by Mr Newman.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. $3,097.55.
  2. To undertake ministerial engagements and to attend press conferences in Adelaide and Sydney.
  3. The Mystere aircraft used for the flight is normally based at Canberra but flew direct from Sydney to Launceston on completion of an earlier task in Sydney.

Illness from Radioactive Emissions, Facilities for Treatment (Question No. 182)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What equipment is available at Sydney’s 3 major hospitals, Sutherland District Hospital and Wollongong Hospital for the diagnosis and treatment of disease or incapacity which may be caused by radioactive emissions.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Illness from radioactive emissions can take 3 formsacute, chronic or long delayed. Depending on the dosage, radiation sickness can also be accompanied by burns.

I am advised that all major hospitals in Sydney together with the Sutherland and Wollongong Hospitals have the resources to cope with illness caused by radioactive emissions.

As a back up to the treatment facilities there are, I understand, full haematological investigational facilities available through the hospitals and chromosomal studies through the N.S.W. Health Commission.

In addition certain specialised tests are readily available by arrangement with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Australian Radiation Laboratory.

Political Prisoners (Question No. 186)

Mr Abel:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

What is the latest estimate by the United Nations of the number of political prisoners who are being detained by each nation for which the United Nations has records.

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

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

While there are references to political prisoners in some United Nations documents, there are no estimates of the kind sought by the honourable member.

Riverina Primary Producers: Freight Rates (Question No. 223)

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

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. Did Sir Henry Bland in his February 1972 Report of the Board on Inquiry into the Victorian Land Transport System recommend that the Bureau of Transport Economics should give attention to the combined rates imposed by the New South Wales and Victorian Railways on commodities carried from and to the Riverina, such as grains, fertilisers, ores, coals, fresh fruit and vegetables.
  2. Did he tell me on 29 August 1972 (Hansard, page 761 ) that he was unaware of any specific interest concerning the Riverina only, although it might well be part of the Bland report and the Bureau might well have been doing a study of it.
  3. Did he tell me on 20 September 1972 (Hansard, page 1735) that the Bureau had obtained a copy of the Bland report on 30 March 1972 but that the Victorian Government had not made an approach in connection with the particular recommendation.
  4. Did his successor in January 1973 refer the relevant sections in the Bland report to the Bureau for its investigations and report.
  5. Did the Bureau in its November 1975 report conclude that the current inter-system rating practices cause substantial financial disadvantages to (a) Riverina wheatgrowers and other primary producers, (b) the Victorian Railways and (c) the New South Wales Treasury.
  6. When was the Bureau’s report sent to the Victorian and New South Wales authorities and what arrangements have been made to discuss it with them.
  7. Did he tell me on 17 March 1976 (Hansard, page 705) that he was formalising the meering of Commissioners of Railways so they could make the necessary freight adjustments between different systems and States.
  8. Did he tell me on 26 May 1976 (Hansard, page 2465) that no further formalisation has occurred since a preliminary meeting of Commissioners had been held prior to the last meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council.
  9. On what dates and with what results have the Commissioners considered the discriminatory freight rates between Victoria and the Riverina, and what steps have been taken to formalise their meetings.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The report of the Board of Inquiry into the Victorian Land Transport system states on page 146 paragraph 14.82: ‘This matter of the impact of present intersystem rating practices on traffic flows and of the likely bearing a change to through mileage rates would have on such flows and in the finances of railway systems appears one for the attention of the Bureau of Transport Economics . . .’
  2. and (3) Yes.
  3. Yes. The reference to the Bureau of Transport Economics is set out in full on page 1 of the BTE Report ‘A Study of Intersystem Railway Freight Rating Practices’.
  4. In the BTE Report mentioned above published in November 1976 it states that factors other than price affected not only modal choice but also the directional flow of traffic. It also states that to the extent that the price of the transport service was the dominant factor influencing modal choice, the effect of present intersystem rail charges was to limit the volume of traffic to and from the Riverina carried under intersystem railway arrangements.

A calculation was made in the Report based on certain assumptions and postulated through mileage rates for railway freight. This calculation indicated that, on the premises on which it was based, there would be a saving to wheat growers and the N.S.W. Treasury and that the Victorian Railways would have gained revenue.

  1. Copies of the BTE Report ‘A Study of Intersystem Railway Freight Rating Practices’ were forwarded to the Ministers for Transport in New South Wales and Victoria, the Chairman of the Victorian Railways Board and the Chief Commissioner of the Public Transport Commission of N.S.W. on 17 December 1976. The issue of intersystem railway rating practices, including those in the Riverina as dealt with in the Report, is under consideration by officials prior to reporting to Ministers.
  2. and (8) Yes.
  3. The Australian Transport Advisory Council has established 4 advisory groups, one of which, the Railway Group, consists of the heads of the various Government railway systems and the Secretary of my Department. It was considered that the Railway Group was the appropriate body to consider such matters as intersystem rail freight rates and these have been discussed at its meetings on 20 January, 5 May and 17 November 1976 and 4 February 1977. It is anticipated that the Railway Group will bring its recommendations to ATAC in due course. 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and Off-Shore Industry Vessels (Question No. 225)
Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Transport upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

On what occasions, at what level and with what results have discussions been held with the States in 1976 and 1977 concerning (a) the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, which is to enter into force on 15 July 1977, and (b) off-shore industry vessels, for which the Navigation Bill 1975 made provision but the Navigation Amendment Act 1976 did not make provision.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and the question of off-shore industry vessels have been discussed with my State counterparts in the forum of the Marine and Ports Council of Australia (MPCA). The meetings at which these matters were discussed are as follows:

Advisers meeting prior to first MPCA-Melbourne 24 May 1976.

First meeting of MPCA-Hobart 28 May 1976.

Advisers meeting- Sydney 16 June 1 976.

Advisers meeting-Adelaide 23 August 1976.

Working group of Advisers- Melbourne 4 October 1976.

Advisers meeting-Perth 16 November 1976.

Second meeting of MPCA-Surfers Paradise 26 November 1976.

Advisers meeting following second MPCA- Surfers Paradise 26 November 1976.

Working Group of Advisers- Melbourne 9 December 1976.

Finality has not been reached on either of these matters which are at present listed for further discussions at the third meeting of the Marine and Pons Council of Australia.

Australian National Line: Operations in Queensland (Question No. 226)

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

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977.

On what dates, at what level and with what result have the Australian and Queensland Governments conferred or corresonded since December 1 972 on the establishment and operation of Australian National Line services within the State (Hansard, 25 August 1971, page 742).

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The honourable member will be aware of the situation in relation to the unsuccessful attempts by the former Government to obtain access of ANL into carriage of general cargo intrastate in Queensland. Since the present Government came to office, Commonwealth and Queensland Governments have communicated on the matter with a favourable result. Correspondence between a Premier and Prime Minister is normally regarded as confidential and for this reason I do not intend to provide information in relation to correspondence between the Queensland Premier and the Prime Minister. Communications on the matter passed between me and the Queensland Minister for Transport on 24.5.76, 30.6.76, 24. 1 1 .76, and 7. 1 .77. Also I had discussions with the Queensland Minister on the matter on 8.7.76. Commonwealth and Queensland officials corresponded on 21.4.76, 30.8.76, 20.9.76 and met on 9.7.76 and 27. 10.76.

The result has been an offer by the Queensland Government to take action to permit the Australian National Line to undertake the carriage intrastate by sea of cars, utilities, trucks, tractors, caravans, boats, earthmoving equipment, agricultural implements and over-dimensional loads which cannot be carried by rail.

Registered Medical and Hospital Benefits Organisations: Annual Reports (Question No. 244)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the National Health Act require the Permanent Head of his Depanment to furnish him as soon as practicable after 30 June each year with a report on the operations of registered medical and hospital benefits organisations for the year ended on 30 June.
  2. Does the Act require a registered organisation to furnish the Permanent Head with the annual accounts and statements he needs for his report within 3 months after 30 June.
  3. Which organisations furnished their annual accounts and statements (a) for 1974-75 after 30 September 1975 and (b) for 1975-76 after 30 September 1976, and on what date did each do so.
  4. When does he expect to receive the Permanent Head ‘s report for 1975-76 (Hansard, 26 August 1976, page 601 and 7 September 1976, page 709).
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The organisations which furnished their annual returns (a) for 1974-75 after 30 September 1975 and (b) for 1975-76 after 30 September 1976, together with the date on which each was received by my Department are set out hereunder:
  1. I do not expect to receive from the Director-General the Annual Report of the Operations of the Medical and Hospital Benefits Organisation for the year ended 30 June 1976 before May 1977.

Having regard to the wide range of accounting procedures and standards adopted by the 83 organisations, the task of extracting and collating the information necessary in the compilation of the Report is an extremely complicated and time-consuming one. The completion target of May 1977 is therefore the earliest that could be expected and one which was not attainable for the 3 preceding Reports.

Environment and Conservation (Question No. 270)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Is the entire coastal area from Angelsea to Geelong endangered by land developers seeking to destroy regional planning in order to subdivide beach and natural forest areas.

    1. Is there a lack of funds to purchase and hold land for environmental and conservation purposes.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government is aware of the difficulties caused by the competing demands for development, recreation and conservation on the coastlines adjoining the major metropolitan areas. The coast from Anglesea to Geelong is no exception.

Nevertheless the control of coastal development subdivision is primarily a matter for local and state initiatives, as is the setting up of Regional Planning Authorities to administer such controls.

  1. State and local governments are primarily responsible for purchasing and holding land for environmental and conservation purposes and it is for them to determine their own priorities when allocating funds for the acquisition of such land.

Minister for Transport: Cost of New Zealand Trips (Question No. 272)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he tell me in answer to Question No. 1 140 (Hansard, 7 December 1976, page 3449) that the total cost associated with his trip to New Zealand from 26 April 1976 to 3 May 1 976 amounted to $3,362. If not, what was the total cost.
  2. What is the reason for the difference in the amounts shown in his answer and the amount of $ 1 1 ,356 shown in the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure for 1976-77 of the Department of Administrative Services.
  3. Was this question first asked as Question 2029 on 17 February 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. However, there was an error in the calculation and the total cost of the New Zealand visit should have read $3,482. (Note: The Department of Administrative Services is responsible for the payment of fares and allowances etc. for Mr and Mrs Nixon and to Ms M. Slater and the Department of Transport for the fares and allowances etc. for Messrs J. Rowland and K.. W. Thompson).
  2. That amount paid by Department of Administrative Services was incorrectly shown as $ 1 1,356 in the first edition of the explanatory notes to the Estimates of Expenditure for 1976-77 of the Department of Administrative Services. This was amended to $2,322 in an erratum sheet issued at the time of the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee ‘A’ on 5 October 1976. This is mentioned on page 212 of Senate Hansard (Estimates Committee A, B and C) of S October 1976.
  3. The honourable member’s Question No. 2029 was placed on notice 5 working days before the House rose in the last Session of this Parliament.

Department of Transport, Melbourne: Staff Transfers to Canberra (Question No. 274)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the names, ages, classifications and salaries of all officers who have refused transfers to Canberra from the Melbourne offices of his Department and the Bureau of Roads from 1 January 1976 to date.
  2. Which of those officers have transferred to alternative positions within the Department’s Melbourne offices rather than accept transfer to Canberra.
  3. Was this question first asked as question No. 2043 on 22 February 1977.

Nr Nixon-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) 42 positions in the Central Office of the Department were transferred from Melbourne to Canberra in the 1976 transfer program. 23 officers declined to transfer to Canberra. I believe that it would be an invasion of the privacy of the staff concerned to publish details of their names, ages and classifications. None of the staff of the Bureau of Roads was on the transfer program.
  2. The honourable member’s question No. 2043 was placed on notice 2 days before the House rose in the last Session of this Parliament.

Department of Transport, Melbourne: Staff Resignations (Question No. 275)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many resignations have occurred from the Department of Transport Melbourne offices, including the Bureau of Roads, from I January 1976 to date.
  2. ) What were the reasons given for each resignation.
  3. ) What were the names, classifications, ages and salaries ofthe officers who resigned.
  4. What action has been taken to fill the resultant vacancies.
  5. Which vacancies still remain unfilled.
  6. Was this question first asked as question No. 2044 on 22 February 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 1 50, out of a total Central Office staff of 1 680.
  2. ) Staff are not required to give reasons upon resignation but those reasons given were as follows:
  1. 1 believe that it would be an invasion of privacy ofthe staff concerned to publish details of their names, ages and classifications.
  1. The honourable member’s question No. 2044 was placed on notice 2 days before the House rose in the last Session of this Parliament.

Study of Cost Recovery in Transport (Question No. 277)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. Have the proper studies and comparison of cost recovery program of other transport modes, which are being carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics and to which he referred on 19 November 1976 as being well advanced, been completed. If not, when will they be completed.
  2. If they have been completed, will he make the results of the studies available to the Parliament in the interests of informed public discussion on the cost structures ofthe various transport modes. If not, why not.
  3. Was this question first asked as Question No. 2046 on 22 February 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The study of cost recovery in transport by the Bureau of Transport Economics is not yet completed. However, it is expected that the study will be completed in the near future.
  2. As with all BTE reports, the question of release of results will be decided when the study is completed and the draft report is available. Therefore I am currently unable to indicate firmly whether this particular report will be released. However I would point out that past experience indicates that BTE reports have been released whenever possible.
  3. The honourable member’s question No. 2046 was originally placed on notice 2 days before the House rose in the last Session of this Parliament.

Industries Assistance Commission Report on Crude Oil Pricing (Question No. 278)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What detailed studies have been carried out by his Department into the implications of the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission on Crude Oil Pricing for (a) the average motorist, (b) the road transport industry, (c) national and state railway systems, (d) the shipping industry and (e) the aviation industry.
  2. If studies have been carried out, will he make the results available promptly to the Parliament for the benefit of the Australian community.
  3. Was this question first asked as Question No. 2047 on 22 February 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Industries Assistance Commission Report on Crude OU Pricing was referred to the Standing Committee on Industry Assistance. The member Departments of that Committee, which includes the Department of Transport, considered the implications of the study recommendations on all users of petroleum energy, including transport, and advised the Government of their findings.

The proceedings of that Committee are confidential and are not available tor public release.

The Prime Minister announced on 1 February 1977 that the Government is currently examining the oil pricing situation and had referred a number of questions to a Committee of Permanent Heads. When advice has been received from that Committee the Government will be in a better position to proceed towards a final decision on oil pricing.

  1. The honourable member’s question No. 2047 was originally placed on notice 2 days before the House rose in the last Session of this Parliament.

Airline ‘Merpati’: Services to Australia (Question No. 279)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the airline Merpati operate passenger freight services to Australia.
  2. If so, between what airports in Australia and overseas does it operate.
  3. What type of passenger services does it provide, i.e. charter or scheduled services.
  4. What is the frequency of its services.
  5. Who are the proprietors of Merpati
  6. What type of aircraft does it operate.
  7. When did it commence its services to Australia.
  8. How many passengers has it carried to and from Australia each year since its commencement.
  9. How much freight has it carried to and from Australia each year since its commencement.
  10. Was this question first asked as question No 2048 on 22 February 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. ) Darwin in Australia and Denpasar in Bali.
  3. Scheduled services.
  4. Once weekly.
  5. Our latest advice is that Merpati is owned by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia.
  6. Vickers Vanguard, though action is in hand to temporary licence the BAC 1-11 aircraft for this service.
  7. 23 January 1972.
  8. Revenue passengers

(9)-

  1. The honourable member’s question No. 2048 was originally placed on notice 2 days before the House rose in the last Session of this Parliament.

Road Construction and Maintenance: Funding to States (Question No. 280)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say what will be the basis of future funding in the next triennium for financial assistance to the States for road construction and maintenance.
  2. If not, when will he be able to supply this information.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The honourable member will have noted that I announced at the ATAC meeting on 25 February 1977 the Government’s decision on the proposed allocation of a total of $475 million for roads in 1977-78.

I also advised the Transport Ministers that as far as funds for the subsequent 2 years are concerned 1 anticipate being in a position to advise on the level of funds to be made available by April.

Department of Transport: Interdepartmental Committee (Question No. 282)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What are the names and classifications of each officer who comprised the Interdepartmental Committee established to examine alternative methods of funding programs presently financed through Section 96 grants.
  2. What is the name of the Chairman of the Committee and from which Department was he a representative.
  3. What consultations have taken place between his Department and State officers specifically on matters raised during the course of the Committee’s deliberations.
  4. What consultations have taken place between his Department and State officers on the report ofthe Committee.
  5. When will he make a statement to the Parliament on the contents of the report.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) In reply to a recent question by the honourable member on this subject (Question No. 1858) I indicated the composition of the Interdepartmental Committee which was established to examine alternative methods of funding programs presently financed through Section 96 grants. The Committee was chaired by an officer of my Department but in accordance with previous practice in this House I do not propose to name the officers who have participated in the work of the Committee.
  2. As I indicated in my previous reply regular consultations are held between my Departmental officials and State officers on all aspects of transport, including the area examined by the Interdepartmental Committee.
  3. None.
  4. As indicated in the reply to Question No. 1858 the report of the Interdepartmental Committee contains reference to Cabinet deliberations and accordingly the contents of the report will not be made public.

Pilbara to Bali Airline Services (Question No. 283)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What airlines and individuals have sought approval to operate scheduled or charter airline services from the Pilbara region of Western Australia to Bali from 1 1 November 1975 to date.
  2. On what date did each first seek approval for the services.
  3. What action has he taken in respect of each application to date.
  4. What representations has he received from third parties either in support of or in opposition to each of the applications.
  5. Was this question first asked as question No. 2082 on 23 February 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) (a) Ansett Transport Industries on behalf of Mac. Robertson Miller Airline Services, on 4 March 1976, for charter services: (b) Transwest Air Charter (Western Australia), on 17 March 1976, for charter services: (c) Qantas Airways Limited, on 4 June 1976, for scheduled services.
  2. The Mac. Robertson Miller and Transwest applications, which did not comply with existing Australian Government policy on charter flights were not approved. Mac. Robertson Miller applied again in January 1977 for two specific affinity group charters from the Pilbara to Bali. These were approved subject to the usual policy requirements for affinity charter flights. The Qantas request is still under consideration with particular reference to the question whether Qantas B707 operations could be accepted in the light of existing facilities and services at Pilbara airports, which were not designed to accommodate such operations.
  3. The intitial Mac. Robertson Miller application received wide support from Western Australian members of Parliament, and from representatives of local government and local organisations in the Pilbara region.
  4. The honourable member’s question No. 2082 was originally placed on notice the day before the House rose in the last Session of this Parliament.

Public and Private Transport Companies: Commonwealth Representation (Question No. 285)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) On what public or private transport companies and statutory authorities does the Commonwealth Government have representation.
  2. What is the name, classification and salary of each representative as at 23 February 1977 and when does the term of appointment of each expire.
  3. What was the name, classification and salary of each representative as at 1 1 November 1 975.
  4. Was this question first asked as question No. 2083 on 23 February 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Same as (2) but the salary for a First Assistant Secretary was $25,477 and for a Deputy Secretary $27,547.
  2. The honourable member’s question No. 2083 was originally placed on notice the day before the House rose in the last session of this Parliament.

Wynnum and Mt Gravatt: Number of Registered Unemployed (Question No. 288)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

How many persons were registered for unemployment benefits at the Commonwealth Employment Service Offices at Wynnum, Qld, and Mt Gravatt, Qld, in November 1976, December 1976 and January 1977.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Persons do not register Tor Unemployment Benefit at Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) Offices. They register as applicants seeking employment, and, if they state that they are presently unemployed, they may also claim Unemployment Benefit. Whether or not this claim is granted depends on a decision of the Department of Social Security.

There is, therefore, no information available as to the number of persons registered for Unemployment Benefit at CES Offices. However, the number of persons registered as unemployed at the end of November 1975, December 1976 and January 1977 at the Queensland Employment Offices of Wynnum and Mt Gravatt was:

Data relating to the numbers of Unemployment Benefit recipients are the responsibility of the Department of Social Security and, if the honourable member requires any information concerning these, he should direct this question to the Minister for Social Security.

International Airlines: Applications for Additional Landing Rights in Australia (Question No. 289)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Which international airlines applied for new or additional landing rights in Australia during 1 976.
  2. Which of these applications have been (a) approved and (b) rejected, and what was the reason for the rejection in each case.
  3. Were any of the applications directly involved with landings at Brisbane International Airport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Air Niugini, Lufthansa and Olympic Airways applied for new or additional landing rights in Australia during 1976.
  2. All applications have been approved.
  3. None of the applications involved traffic rights at Brisbane International Airport.

Beer: Resale Price Maintenance (Question No. 307)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. Has the Government considered introducing legislation outlawing resale price maintenance of packaged beer so as to nullify the effect of State legislation fixing the price of packaged beer.
  2. Has the Government received any representations concerning this matter; if so, from whom, and what was the nature of the representations.
  3. Does the Government propose any inquiry into beer pricing, other than inquiries conducted by the Prices Justification Tribunal, along the lines of that presently being conducted by the United Kingdom Prices Commission.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The Government regards details of any representations made to it as confidential.
  3. No.

Film Distribution and Tarin* Board Report on Motion Pictures and Television Programs (Question No. 308)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it proposed to implement all the recommendations of the Tariff Board Report on Motion Pictures and Television Programs; if not, why not.
  2. What action does the Trade Practices Commission propose to take against the Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd and Cinema International Corporation Pty Ltd with respect to their exclusive dealing arrangements.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to a report appearing in the Irish Times of 30 December 1976 relating to the investigation of the Irish Trade Practices Commission into film distribution and exhibition in the Irish Republic.
  4. If so, has this investigation any relevance to the current film distribution and exhibition arrangements which exist in Australia, and will it be taken into account in the present proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Act.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. The Tariff Board’s Report was received by the Whitlam Government on 13 July 1973 and that Government’s decision on the Board’s recommendations was announced on 10 December 1973.
  2. The Trade Practices Commission is keeping firms within the film distribution and exhibition industry under review. No enforcement action has been taken by the Commission to date. Any future enforcement action taken by the Commission would be announced at that time in the normal way.
  3. Yes.
  4. No amendments in this regard are necessary.

Aircraft Passenger Movements (Question No. 312)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many aircraft passenger movements were there from Sydney Airport during 1976.
  2. How many of these were (a) internal and (b) international movements.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Preliminary statistics, including some estimations, indicate that 3 298 000 passengers departed from Sydney Airport during the year ended 31 December 1976.
  2. Of this total:

    1. internal (domestic) passenger departures accounted for 2 447 000 movements, comprising 2 387 000 scheduled Regular Public Transport and 60 000 Communter movements.
    2. international passenger departures accounted for the remaining 851 000 movements.

Aircraft Movements (Question No. 313)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March, 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many aircraft movements were recorded at Sydney Airport each year from 1973 to 1976.
  2. How many of these movements annually were between the hours of (a) 6.45 a.m. to 7 p.m., (b) 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and (c) 10 p.m. to 6.45 a.m.
  3. How many of these movements annually were landings from the west on the east-west runway between the hours of (a) 6.45 a.m. to 7 p.m., (b) 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and (c) 10 p.m. to 6.45 a.m.
  4. How many of these movements annually were take-offs to the west from the east-west runway between the hours of (a) 6.45 a.m. to 7 p.m., (b) 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and (c) 10 p.m. to 6.45 a.m.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Isolated Students: Eligibility for Allowances (Question No. 323)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

Is it a fact that a student receiving an isolated children’s allowance is debarred from a secondary education allowance, or a handicapped child ‘s allowance, or vice versa?

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

-The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

For a student in the final two years of secondary schooling, the Special Supplementary Allowance payable under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme is identical in its provisions to the Secondary Allowance. Both allowances are payable to parents with limited income and are subject to the same means test. Payment is therefore made under only one of the two schemes.

Benefits under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme are not affected by payment of Handicapped Child ‘s Allowance. This allowance, administered by the Department of Social Security, is payable in respect of a severely handicapped child under the age of 16 years who is being cared for in a private home. Such a child may be entitled to an allowance under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme as well as the Handicapped Child’s Allowance if he is either undertaking an approved course of correspondence studies at home, or living with a relative to attend daily an institution for the handicapped because his family home is too far from the institution.

Canberra: School Bus Fare System (Question No. 327)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated cost to the Government of the recently announced school bus fare system in Canberra for the year 1977.
  2. Will the new fare structure increase or decrease the Government subsidy.
  3. When calculating the fare structure were comparisons made with school bus fares in cities of similar size elsewhere in Australia: if so, what were the comparable charges. If not, is it considered that Canberra residents should be treated differently to other Australians.
Mr Staley:
Minister for the Capital Territory · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The estimated cost of school bus travel in the A.C.T. for 1976-77 is $1,750,000. The estimated revenue from school bus fares for 1976-77 is $295,000.
  2. The new fare structure will decrease the government subsidy by the amount of fare revenue.
  3. (a) Yes.

    1. Charges for school bus travel in the smaller Australian capitals are Hobart 10c, Perth 10c or a $12 term ticket, Adelaide a monthly concession ticket ranging from $1.50 to $4.50 depending on distance travelled. Brisbane has no special school bus fare system. Canberra fares are 10c per ride or a $10 term ticket.
    2. Canberra residents are not treated differently.

Inspection and Treatment of vessels (Question No. 333)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 March 1977.

  1. 1 ) How many vessels at each Australianport (a) have been inspected under the Grain (Export) Regulations, (b) have required treatment for rodent infestation, (c) have required treatment for insect infestation, (d) have required treatment for both rodent and insect infestation and (e) have required treatment for other reasons during the period 1 January 1975 to 3 1 December 1976.
  2. What has been the average delay in each port in respect of those vessels requiring treatment.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a), (c) and (e) The number of vessels which were inspected under the authority of the Exports (Grain) Regulations during the period 1 January 1973 to 31 December 1976 are shown below together with those for which treatment was ordered for reasons including insect infestation or because of cleaning or descaling-
  1. if treatment of grain loading vessels for rodent infestation is necessary it is normally carried out under the authority of the Quarantine Act. The information sought is not available from my Department.
  2. See (b) above.

    1. Statistical data on the time factor are not recorded but the normal delay experienced as a result of vessels not being presented in a satisfactory condition for the loading of grain is between one and two days.

Western Australia: Breaches of Industrial Awards (Question No. 335)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How may breaches of awards were reported by arbitration inspectors inspecting local government authorities in Western Australia during 1976.
  2. ) What were the number and nature of breaches by each local government authority, and what action was taken in respect of these breaches.
  3. What were the total man hours worked by arbitration inspectors and subsidiary staff in inspecting local government authorities in Western Australia in 1 976.
  4. What were the total costs incurred in inspecting local government authorities in Western Australia in 1976, and can he supply a breakup of the costs.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. During the 1976 calendar year 37 breaches of awards by 6 separate Western Australian local government authorities were detected by the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate.
  2. Individual breaches of award provisions by each of the authorities comprised:
  1. and (4) My Department’s records are not maintained in a form which enables a dissection to be made of the total man hours spent and costs incurred in inspecting individual employers or their establishments. Consequently it is not possible to provide the specific information requested for inspections made of local government authorities in Western Australia during 1976.

However during the 1975-76 financial year the average cost to the Commonwealth for workplaces inspected was $68.41 of which $2.92 was expended on travel and accommodation.

The inspections made by the Inspectorate of Western Australian local government authorities during 1976 represented 2.2 per cent of the total number of inspections carried out in that State during that year.

Australian Policy on SWAPO (Question No. 337)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. What is the Australian Government’s attitude to the South West Africa People’s Organisation and its position in South West Africa.
  2. Has the Government provided any money or aid, directly or indirectly, to SWAPO. If so, how much, and for what purposes.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Government considers that SWAPO is a major and authentic representative of political opinion in Namibia. It does not however regard it as the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people. The Government believes that the representatives of indigenous political forces in Namibia other than SWAPO should be included in the process of negotiation to determine Namibia’s constitutional future.
  2. In December 1974, the previous Government contributed $ I 50,000 to UNICEF to assist in a UNICEF project in Zambia directed at providing humanitarian and educational aid to refugees there connected with a number of liberation movements, one of which was SWAPO. The present Government has not made any financial contribution to SWAPO.

For some years the Australian Government has made regular contributions to the United Nations Fund for Namibia and to the United Nations Educational and Training Program for Southern Africa, both of which provide educational assistance to Namibian students regardless of their political affiliations.

Taiwanese Fishing Fleets Operating in Australian Waters (Question No. 339)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports in December 1976 of statements by Mr Ian Tuxworth, Member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, that Taiwanese fishing fleets operating in Northern Australian waters deliberately allow several boats to be caught by the Navy so that mother ships and other fishing vessels can freely fish Australian waters.
  2. ) If so, is there any substance in the statements.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. I am aware that Mr Ian Tuxworth, former Executive Member for Resources Development in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, has expressed views on the subject.
  2. I am advised that the Department of Primary Industry, which is responsible for fisheries matters, and which is assisted in fisheries surveillance by patrolling units of the Navy and Air Force, has no evidence that would warrant the conclusion that Mr Tuxworth appears to have drawn. However, in so far as the Defence Force is involved in these matters it will bear in mind in its activities the need to guard against such devices.

Australian Capital Territory: Foundation for Youth (Question No. 356)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the total net assets of the Foundation for Youth.
  2. ) Over what period has this money been accumulated.
  3. Precisely when is it planned to utilise these assets for the purpose for which the money was raised .
  4. What is the proposed location and estimated cost of any Youth Foundation building project under consideration.
  5. What basic amenities and facilities will such a project provide.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. to (5) The Foundation for Youth is an independent private organisation. Information of this kind should more appropriately be sought from the Foundation’s Executive.

Lady Southern Cross Search Expedition (Question No. 358)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice, on 10 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Has a group of Australians led by Mr Ted Wixted, of Queensland, made application to the Government of Burma for approval to take an expedition to the sea between Aye Island and the mainland town of Ye in the Gulf of Martaban to search for Kingsford-Smith ‘s aircraft, the Lady Southern Cross, lost on 8 November 1935?
  2. If so, what has been the response of the Burmese Government to this request?
  3. What assistance will the Australian Government provide in respect of the expedition ‘s objectives?
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Embassy in Rangoon, has made an official application to the Burmese Government for permission for the group of Australians led by Mr Wixted to enter Burma and conduct a search for the remains of the Lady Southern Cross.
  2. The Burmese Government has indicated its approval in principle for the expedition to enter Burma and has requested further information on the group’s plans before a final decision is made.
  3. The Australian Government is prepared to continue to assist with contacts with the Burmese Government on the expedition’s behalf.

Public Service Staff Ceilings (Question No. 359)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the imposition of Public Service staff ceilings been used to run down the Design and Development Section of his Department.
  2. If so, has the result been an increase in the use of outside consultants to perform design and development work, and a subsequent increase in cost.
  3. Was this decision made on the grounds of efficiency and cost savings. If so, why has the resultant contracting increasingly been allocated by selective tendering.
  4. How can these actions be reconciled with his Government’s stated commitment to lowering costs.
Mr McLeay:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Within the Department of Construction staff ceilings are being achieved by reductions through natural wastage; this is occurring in professional, clerical/administrative and direct labour areas. The number of professionals (architects. engineers and quantity surveyors) expressed as a percentage of total employees, was marginally higher at December 1976 than at the start of that year ( 10.6 per cent compared with 10.1 percent).
  2. In line with Government policy of reducing the size of. the Public Service, design and development work carried out by consultants as a percentage of the total will increase as design resource capacity within the Department of Construction decreases. I do not agree that this will increase the cost of such work.
  3. and (4) This decision was a reflection of the Government’s desire to reduce the relative size of the public sector. The decision was not made in the belief that work undertaken by the Department of Construction is necessarily either less efficient or more costly than similar work undertaken in the private sector.

There has been no decision calling for increase in selective tendering. It is Departmental practice that tenders be invited publicly unless special circumstances obtain. In addition, where selective tendering methods are used, competition is maintained by ensuring that wherever practical at least five contractors are invited to tender.

Tiki Fashion Company: Employment (Question No. 360)

Mr Abel:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did Mr Sam Vassililou of the Tiki Fashion Company in Sydney, which is located five minutes from Central Station, register15 positions for machinists with the Leichhardt and City Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service in mid-February offering weekly wages of between $ 1 20 and $180.
  2. Can he say whether Mr Vassililou also advertised the positions in Sydney ‘s ethnic press and in the Sydney Morning Herald.
  3. Can he also say whether, up to the beginning of March in response to these employment opportunities, Mr Vassililou received only 1 reply from an untrained young lady who Mr Vassililou offered to train but who did not reappear to start work even though she indicated she would do so.
  4. Can the Commonwealth Employment Service give any reasons for these employment opportunities not being taken up.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. My Department has advised me that Tiki Fashion Pty Ltd advertised for experienced machinists in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19.2.77, offering employment on a piece work basis. It is not aware of advertisements by this company in Sydney’s ethnic press.
  3. My Department is not aware of the response to the employment opportunities referred to.
  4. I understand from my Department that there is a shortage of experienced clothing machinists in the Sydney area, and that employers generally are experiencing difficulties in obtaining suitable labour of this kind.

Distribution of Incomes (Question No. 363)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government have targets for any of the various types of income distribution such as income shares between (a) wages and profits, (b) sectors of the economy and (c) the various levels of personal income. If so, what are they.
  2. What is the impact of the Government’s macroeconomic policies expected to be on each of these types of income distribution.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) The Government does not consider it useful to set quantitative targets for the distribution of income.

Although the overall economic climate and level of national income are heavily influenced by policy and the Government intervenes in the market, where necessary, for social and other reasons, the Government believes that the distribution of income before tax should, in general, be determined by market forces. In current circumstances, however, certain general shifts in the distribution of income are needed.

In terms of the functional distribution of income, the Government believes that if sustained economic recovery is to be achieved the profit share of national income must be restored to more normal levels.

With regard to the sectoral distribution of income, the Government is committed to the expansion of the private sector relative to the public sector and to this end is engaged in the task of reining in the growth of the public sector. In the long run, other sectors could be expected to gain from the relative contraction of the public sector. However in view of the erosion of economic viability in large areas of the external sector (export and import-competing industries) in recent years, it is important for the restoration of an income balance conducive to soundly-based growth that this sector gain relative to other sectors.

The fight against inflation remains the major economic priority of the Government. A reduction in the rate of inflation constitutes the chief means of ensuring the growth of real income for all Australians- not simply for those currently with jobs, but also for workers brought back into employment as a result of an increase in job opportunities.

Woomera: Employment of Wives of American Servicemen (Question No. 367)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Are wives of American servicemen being employed in the Australian Services Canteens Organisation canteen and store at Woomera; if so, how many and in what capacity.
  2. Are employment opportunities for local women being inhibited by the employment of wives of American servicemen.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes- At 17 March 1977 one part-time female pay clerk was employed in the community store. Five female shop assistants were employed on a casual basis (approximately15 hours per week). Six juniors, both male and female, were employed at weekends on a casual basis (approximately 10 hours per week). There are no American nationals employed on a permanent basis.
  2. On 17 March 1977 there were no applications from Australian citizens seeking employment in the community store.

Plague Locust Commission (Question No. 371)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. Who are the members of the Plague Locust Commission, and how were they appointed.
  2. What power does the Commission have to control outbreaks within a State and across State borders.
  3. What is the annual administration and operational budget of the Commission.
  4. Is the Commission able to obtain additional finance when there is a plague.
  5. What power does the Commission have to obtain the use of Defence Service personnel and equipment during a plague.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Members of the Australian Plague Locust Commission are-

Mr W. C. K. Hammer (Chairman); Department of Primary Industry

Mr D. H. Mumford; Department of Agriculture, New South Wales.

Mr I. W. Norman; Department of Agriculture, Victoria

Mr T. Passlow; Department of Primary Industries, Queensland

Mr P. Birks; Department of Agriculture, South Australia

Mr R. Claridge; Department of Investment, Housing and Community Development

Their appointment is the result of nomination by the permanent heads of the respective Departments.

  1. The terms of reference for the Australian Plague Locust Commission agreed by the Australian Agricultural Council state that the Commission will engage in operations designed to combat outbreaks or potential outbreaks of the Australian Plague Locust in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland which, in the opinion of the Commission, are likely to result in damage to rural industries in another State.
  2. 1976-77-$500,000

1 977-78-$ 1 . 2m (estimated ).

  1. The situation has not yet arisen where the Commission has needed to seek additional funds. Every effort is being made to avoid the need by adequate budgeting.
  2. It is anticipated that when fully established, the Commission will not require the assistance of the Defence Services in Plague Locust control. In the event of assistance being required, it would be by negotiation.

Plague Locust Commission and Defence Personnel (Question No. 374)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. What arrangement is there with the Plague Locust Commission and/or the State Governments for the use of Defence Service personnel and equipment during a locust plague.
  2. What restrictions are placed on personnel, equipment and expenditure incurred during such a plague.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is a long-standing arrangement with the States that the Natural Disasters Organisation or the Defence Force do not become involved in disaster situations in the States, except at the request of the appropriate State authorities. This policy applies equally to locust plagues. It is also a precondition for the provision of assistance that the State is unable to cope with the situation from its own resources or that other compelling circumstances exist. The conditions are well known to the States, and the Plague Locust Commission has also been informed of them.

An exception to the above arrangements is that a Local Commander may take action on his own initiative, and from within his own resources, to provide assistance in those civil emergencies where immediate action is necessary to save human or animal life or to prevent extensive loss or damage to property and where civilian resources are either inadequate, beyond the resources of the State to meet, not available or cannot be mobilised in time.

  1. Within the conditions described in (1), personnel, equipment and expenditure may be authorised to assist State authorities to combat locust plagues. Unless there are special circumstances, it is the policy to seek recovery of the additional costs incurred, that is, those costs which would not have been incurred by the Defence Force had assistance not been given.

Wine Imports (Question No. 375)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

What action is his Department taking to ensure that imported wines conform to Australian standards which require a minimum of 8 per cent alcohol by volume.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

There is no import requirement for wines to conform to a standard of minimum alcohol content.

Arbitration Inspectorate: Prosecutions for Breaches of Awards (Question No. 381)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

How many prosecutions for breaches of awards were instituted by the Arbitration Inspectorate in the first and second half of each of the years 1973 to 1976.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Workers’ Compensation Payments (Question No. 393)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Are payments of a recurring nature under Workers’ Compensation and 3rd Party legislation taxable.
  2. Are lump-sum payments under Workers’ Compensation and 3rd Party legislation tax-free.
  3. Is it a fact that interim periodic payments often are deducted from the final capital lump-sum settlement.
  4. Why is tax paid on these periodic payments not finally recoverable.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As a general rule periodic payments under Workers’ Compensation Acts and 3rd Party legislation are made to compensate an injured person for the loss of income he or she would otherwise earn during a period of incapacity. Such payments are subject to income tax either as income in ordinary concepts or made a specific provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act (section 26(j)) which includes in assessable income any amount received by way of indemnity for loss of income which, if derived, would have been assessable income.
  2. Lump-sum payments may be made for a specific injury, for medical and similar expenses incurred as the result of an injury, or as a payment in redemption of further periodic payments. These payments are usually made under various State Acts or as a result of an action for negligence. In such cases the payment is a capital receipt and is not subject to tax.
  3. and (4) A final capital lump-sum settlement may take into account periodic payments made prior to the settlement. This is generally provided for in State or other legislation but does not necessarily mean that periodic payments are deducted from the lump-sum settlement but rather that the final amount settled is determined after taking into account any interim periodic payments made. The Workers’ Compensation Act of Victoria, for instance, provides for weekly compensation payments to an employee who is incapacitated as a result of injuries received in the course of employment or in travelling to or from a place of employment. At the same time it is recognised that an employee may have a claim for damages for negligence against an employer or some third party and bring an action independently of the Workers’ Compensation Act. If the employee should succeed in the claim for damages, the Workers’ Compensation Act provides that the amount of the judgment or order shall be reduced by the amount of the payments already made. Third party legislation relating to motor accidents follows a similar principle in relation to interim payments for loss of income.

The Commissioner of Taxation considers that the correct view of the very complex situations which may arise where there is a claim for damages is that payments under such circumstances consist of two distinct parts. The first relates to the initial period in respect of which payments for loss of earnings are made. These are, in the Commissioner’s opinion, clearly assessable income. The right to receive these payments arises independently of an employer’s or a third party’s negligence and this right may be retained even if an action for damages is unsuccessful. The second stage is reached if the action for damages succeeds. The claimant may then be awarded a capital sum representing the balance ofthe loss suffered as a result of the injury.

Hishamuddin Rais (Question No. 400)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did the Government give a reason to Malaysian student Hishamuddin Rais, for rejecting his request for political asylum.
  2. If not, will he now give a reason.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) It is not customary to give reasons for rejecting an application for political asylum and none was given to Hishamuddin Rais.
  2. On the information available to the Government from Hishamuddin himself and from other sources, he was not eligible for asylum on the widely accepted principles applicable in such cases: these principles are reflected in the Draft Convention on Territorial Asylum.

Land Acquisition for Freeways: Funding (Question No. 411)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does his Department ever grant money for land acquisition for freeway development other than in hardship cases.
  2. Could bodies like the Victorian Country Roads Board ever use this money to influence people to sell their homes or other properties when they had little or no prior intention to sell.
  3. What is the exact nature of the land acquisition funding proposal for the Hume Freeway between Bell Street and Clifton Hill, Victoria, as released in November 1 976.
  4. Can people in Northcote expect a freeway to carve up their city soon. If not, how can hardship cases exist, let alone require funding.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth Government makes funds available to the States for road works. Road works include many different activities one of which is land acquisition. In the normal course land is acquired only where actual road construction is about to begin.

However, in the major capital cities planned corridors or planning reservations have existed for upwards of 30 years. Because of the existence of these planning reservations property owners are often unable to sell their property on the market. There are legal provisions in each State which require the relevant Transport Authority to purchase land subject to planning reservations when the owner has good reasons to sell, but cannot find a buyer. This is called ‘hardship acquisition’. The Commonwealth Government takes the view that in these circumstances it is reasonable to make funds available for purchase of such properties.

  1. Where the Commonwealth Government approval is restricted to hardship acquisition the conditions are strict and it would not be open to the Transport Authority to influence people to sell if they did not wish to do so. However where construction is included in a current program and Commonwealth funds are being used to acquire land for imminent construction the Transport Authority can and does influence people to sell.
  2. The approved 1976-77 Victorian Urban Arterial road program included a proposal for land acquisition in hardship cases only on the Hume Freeway between Bell Street and Clifton Hill at an estimated cost of $760,000. This proposal was submitted as a contingency item so that if an owner did request hardship acquisition, funds would be available. Approval of the proposal does not imply that land would actually be acquired. It would only occur as a result of the owner approaching the Country Roads Board with a request for them to purchase.
  3. This question appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what hardship acquisition involves. I should reiterate that because of the long standing existence of these planning reservations property owners are frequently not able to sell their properties on the open market. In these cases the initiative rests with the owner to approach the responsible State Authority and prove a genuine need for hardship acquisition. If genuine hardship is proven the authority is obliged to purchase the property.

I have been advised that the State Government does not intend to start construction of the Hume Freeway for a number of years. However so that the Planning Reservation may be retained hardship acquisition has been approved in those cases where property owners wish to sell but are unable to do so on the open market.

Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Kellogg Foundation (Question No. 4 14)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is there an arrangement between a special unit of the University of New England financed by the Kellogg Foundation, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, for a study of the fundamental issues facing agriculture.
  2. If so, (a) what fundamental issues will be examined, (b) how and when will the findings be published, (c) how many persons from each of the two organisations will be involved, (d) what will be the total cost and (e) what will be the percentage apportionment of the total cost.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

There is no special arrangement between the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Kellogg Rural Adjustment Unit which has been established at the University of New England with a grant from the Kellogg Foundation in the United States. The BAE has participated in some workshops and seminars organised by the Unit. This contact by the Bureau is similar to the wideranging interaction and contact the Bureau has with individuals and organisations that have an interest in the Bureau’s program of research. Such contact serves to achieve greater dissemination of the results of the Bureau’s research and to expose the Bureau to the opinions and ideas of others with an interest in the rural sector.

The Kellogg Adjustment Unit is convening a major conference later this year on aspects of productivity and incomes on Australian farms. The conference is to provide a forum for expressing views and reporting results of research. The BAE has accepted an invitation to participate and Bureau officers will present papers at the conference. The details of this participation have not yet been finalised although, in principle, the basis of this participation will be the same as that which applies whenever Bureau officers are involved in activities of this nature with non-government organisations.

National Training Council: Agricultural Training Investigations (Question No. 419)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What investigations has the National Training Council made, or what investigations does it intend to make, into the training requirements of agricultural industries.
  2. If investigations have been carried out, what deficiencies in training requirements have been found and have any recommendations been made to overcome these deficiencies.
  3. If no investigations have been made, or are to be made, what is the reason.
Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The National Training Council is a tripartite body responsible to the Minister for Productivity and charged with the task of advising him on the Commonwealth Government’s manpower training policies, priorities and programs.

In its efforts to improve training at all occupational levels and in all sectors of industry and commerce, the Council has actively sought the close co-operation of employer, trade union and industry bodies, and other appropriate bodies and authorities in the formation, within each industry, of tripartite industry training committees. These committees have the responsibility of assessing the manpower training requirements and problems of their respective industries, of developing proposals to overcome them and for improving training generally. Industry Training Committees have been established in15 separate industries and the establishment of committees in a further 2 industries is in progress.

To date, 3 committees have been established in what can be broadly described as primary industry, namely, dairy processing, timber, and wool producing. Negotiations are in progress to establish a training committee for the fishing industry.

  1. Information about the activities of the Dairy Processing, Timber, and Wool Producing Industry Training Committees relevant to the questions raised is as follows:

National Dairy Processing Industry Training Committee

  1. A Manpower Training Needs of the Dairy Processing Industry was undertaken by the Committee during August to December 1975. The survey covered 248 registered dairy factories and support establishments. The Report was launched in August 1976.
  2. Deficiences highlighted by the survey reports related mainly to the need for in-service training for employees to enable the development of higher standards of quality, marketing and product presentation. It was noted that technicial training was better provided in the industry than nontechnical training, particularly human relations and management type training.

A Series of recommendations was made to overcome these deficiencies. These included the need to set up State Industry Training Committees, the promotion of training consciousness in the industry, the training of instructors and development of industry training resources, updating recruitment material improving external training facilities, encouraging understanding of the importance of job enrichment, the development of human relations skills at management levels and the appointment of a full-time Manpower Development Officer for the industry.

Action on the implementation of these recommendations is now proceeding.

National Timber Industry Training Committee

  1. The National Timber Industry Training Committee conducted a survey during November 1973- April 1974 to identify the training needs of the industry and the manner in which training should be carried out. The results of the survey were published in 1975 under the title ‘Manpower Training Needs of the Timber Industry ‘.
  2. Deficiencies in training requirements in the Timber Industry were highlighted by the survey. For example, difficulties were experienced in recruiting for all job groups, but most particularly in the categories of saw doctoring, wood-machining, sawyer-banding.

Four out of every five firms interviewed felt that the industry was not attracting enough young people. The survey showed a need for a marked increase in the number of apprenticeships offered to maintain the required number of tradesmen in most areas.

As a result of recommendations made by the Committee, these problems are now being dealt with. In particular, the Committee has placed emphasis on the employment of manpower development officers within the industry with the result that the industry is now developing a cadre of training specialists able to achieve improvements in training. Various apprenticeships and training programs, including on-the-job training, have been developed for those occupations mentioned above.

National Wool Producing Industry Training Committee

  1. The National Wool Producing Industry Training Committee was established in November 1976 and is initially examining the training requirements of shearers. As part of this examination, the Committee is collecting data on employment figures, numbers requiring training each year, and the type of training needed.

The Committee is also proposing to examine the employment and training needs of other persons employed in the production of wool including wool classers, shed hands, and farm managers.

  1. See answers 1 and 2 above.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs: Reply Paid Envelopes (Question No. 421)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that veterans and widows of veterans, who are required to supply information to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, are no longer provided with a reply paid envelope as was the case when previous governments were in office.
  2. If so, what is the reason for the change.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has discontinued the practice of sending ‘reply paid ‘ envelopes to service pensioners and applicants for service pensions. However, where it is considered that special circumstances apply, ‘ reply paid ‘ envelopes are still provided.
  2. ) The facility was discontinued, over twelve months ago. after a government review aimed at achieving economy in administration.

Ambassador to Ireland (Question No. 429)

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When did the Ambassador-designate to Ireland arrive in Dublin?
  2. Did he carry a Letter of Credence addressed to a President of Ireland who had died?
  3. ) If so, when had that President died?
  4. By whom was the Letter of Credence signed and on what date, and on whose recommendation?
  5. When and by what means did the Government of Ireland inform the Australian Government that the Letter was unacceptable?
  6. When was the Ambassador-designate sent a Letter of Credence to the current President?
  7. ) When did he present the Letter?
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 20 March 1976.
  2. No.
  3. -.
  4. The original Letter of Credence was signed by Her Majesty the Queen on 22 March 1976. Letters of Credence are normally dispatched to Buckingham Palace under the cover of a letter from Government House Canberra with the request that they be placed before Her Majesty for signature.
  5. On 2 April 1976 the Ambassador-Designate reported that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had advised that the Letters were incorrectly worded, and thus unacceptable to the Irish authorities. The reason for this was that the Letters of Credence were incorrectly addressed to the President of Ireland in the form used by the British Government, that is, the form acceptable to Buckingham Palace for British Ambassadors. The British form is that the President of Ireland is addressed in Letters of Credence by name only his title not being mentioned. In 1958 the Australian and Irish Governments agreed to use a form and title of address different from the British practice. This describes the Irish Head of State by name and as President of Ireland.
  6. ) The corrected Letter of Credence was dispatched to Dublin on 7 May 1976.
  7. 19 May 1976.

National Disasters Insurance Scheme (Question No. 450)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Has consideration been given to establishing a Natural Disasters Insurance Scheme to cover such natural disasters as floods and cyclones; if so, by what process has the proposal been considered, and what results have accrued.
  2. ) Has attention been given to the considerable incidence of disaster caused by ‘landslip’ in respect of which many people have suffered serious financial loss because of uninsurable eventualities; if so, is it intended to facilitate protection of property owners against ‘landslip’ by (a) instituting a public insurance scheme, (b) instituting a private insurance scheme or (c) extending natural disaster assistance to such cases.
  3. Can he say what are the recorded property losses from landslip’ in the following areas: (a) Illawarra (WollongongStanwell Park to Gerringong), New South Wales, (b) Picton, Camden and Moss Vale areas behind the Illawarra Escarpment, New South Wales, (c) Warringah Shire area (Northern Beaches), New South Wales, (d) Gosford and Wyong Shires, New South Wales, (e) Oxley and Brisbane, Queensland, (f) Tambourine Mountain and adjacent slopes, Queensland and (g) Buderim and Mooloolaba areas, Queensland.
  4. Can he also say what assistance has been given to people suffering financial loss by ‘landslip’ by (a) local governments, (b) State Governments and (c) the Commonwealth Government.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. In March 1976 1 announced that the Government had agreed in principle to introduce a natural disaster insurance scheme and had approved the establishment of a working party of officials to formulate proposals for a scheme in consultation with the insurance industry. Following consideration of the working party’s report, my colleague, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Robinson), tabled a discussion paper, based on that report, in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1976 and invited public comment on the proposals for a scheme put forward by the working party. On the same day, the Minister announced the Government’s intention to establish a technical committee to work on detailed aspects of a scheme. The working party is responsible for co-ordinating the further work in development of a scheme, including the activities of the technical committee, and is currently receiving and assessing comments from the public and from the insurance industry.
  2. Under the scheme outlined in the discussion paper, protection against losses resulting from landslip and other natural hazards coming within the scheme would be provided to the property owner upon payment of a premium to a pool of general insurers with the Commonwealth providing reinsurance to the pool within specified limits. It is to be emphasised that the Government is not committed to the particulars of the scheme outlined as it is subject to public comment and to further analysis at the technical level.
  3. No; this information is not available to the Commonwealth. It is added, however, that the technical committee will be gathering and analysing available and relevant statistics as it progresses in its work on the technical aspects of a scheme.
  4. (a) and (b)

No; I am not able to advise what assistance might have been rendered to people suffering financial loss by ‘landslip’ by local and State Governments on their own account. Information on this aspect could be sought from relevant State and local authorities.

  1. When natural disasters causing damage and destruction occur in a State, the State Government concerned examines the situation to determine whether Government assistance is required and, if so, in what form. If the State Government believes that assistance is required it may approach the Commonwealth Government for financial support and there are well established procedures (outlined in Budget Paper No. 7, pages 95 to 97) for then determining the extent and nature of Commonwealth assistance.

In the exceptional circumstances relating to the devastating flooding which occurred in Queensland (particularly in the Brisbane and Ipswich areas) in the early part of 1 974, the Commonwealth Government agreed to support the

Queensland Government, in respect of a wide range of agreed measures of assistance. One such measure was the provision of grant assistance, on an ‘ex-gratia- no precedent basis’, up to a limit of $15,000, to owner-occupiers whose houses were seriously damaged by landslip or erosion or threatened because their land was rendered a non-viable housing allotment as a result of landslip or erosion. This assistance applied in respect of landslip or erosion attributable to the flood rains that occurred in that State during the first three months of 1974. Provision of assistance was subject to any insurance recoveries being taken into account and subject to an income and assets means test of the owneroccupier. As the Queensland Government administered this scheme of assistance, further details, if desired, should be sought from that source. The Commonwealth has not provided any other assistance specifically in respect of landslip ‘.

Wheat Stabilisation Scheme: Industries Assistance Commission Reference (Question No. 454)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 March, 1977:

What guidelines have been laid down in regard to the reference to the Industries Assistance Commission of the Wheat Stabilization Scheme.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

On 14 February 1977 I announced that the subject of wheat stabilization had been referred to the Industries Assistance Commission by my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The terms of the reference were:

I, JOHN WINSTON HOWARD, Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs

. Refer the following matter to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry and report in accordance with Section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973:

whether Commonwealth Government assistance should be provided to stabilize returns for wheat for seasons following the 1978-79 season;

if so, what should be the nature and extent of such assistance.

Specify the period of fifteen months commencing on the date of this reference as the period within which the Commission is to report on the matter described in paragraph 1 of this reference.’

Mr Howard has advised that the Commission will be carrying out the inquiry in accordance with policy guidelines and procedures as laid down in the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973.

Consumer Price Index: Effect of Devaluation (Question No. 461)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

By what percentage will devaluation have increased the annual rate of growth of the Consumer Price Index by the end of 1977 when estimates are made on the same basis as were used in the evidence presented to the Arbitration Commission in the current wage indexation case.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

In its recent National Wage Case submission the Commonwealth presented projections of the Consumer Price

Index which assumed that the devaluation would directly increase the CPI by 1 per cent in the March quarter and 2 per cent in the June quarter of 1977. Beyond that, insufficient evidence is presently available to enable any precise answer to be given to the honorable member’s question at this stage.

No. 34 Squadron, RAAF (Question No. 468)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What goods, foodstuffs, including oysters, or articles were picked up from, or delivered to, Mount Gambier by VIP flight (a) HS 748 on 1 1 March 1976 and (b) BAC 1-11 on 15 March 1976.
  2. To where were the items delivered.
  3. Who authorised the transport of the items.
  4. To whom did the items belong and from whom were they obtained.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) No VIP flight was made to Mount Gambier on either 1 1 or 15 March 1976. However, an aircraft of No. 34 Squadron, RAAF made a training flight through Mount Gambier on each of those dates.

No goods, foodstuffs or articles were delivered to Mount Gambier on these flights.

No goods, foodstuffs or articles were picked up from Mount Gambier other than as advised in answer to Question No. 425 (Hansard, 1 8 May 1976, page 2 1 60).

Transport of these items was authorised by the Commanding Officer, No. 34 Squadron RAAF. The items belonged to and were obtained from Mildara Wines Ltd., Coonawarra, S.A.

Electoral Division of Capricornia: Commonwealth Assistance to Sport (Question No. 484)

Mr Carige:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

What expenditure has the Commonwealth Government made by way of direct financial assistance to the different sports in the Electoral Division of Capricornia for each ofthe years 1973-74 to 1975-76.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

No direct Commonwealth financial assistance was provided to sporting groups in the Electoral Division of Capricornia for the years 1973-74 to 1975-76. However, while assistance under the former Government’s sports assistance program was provided only to national sporting associations, members of sporting teams representing Queensland at national championships and who reside in the electorate would have received assistance under this program. No record is kept of individuals who received this assistance.

However, assistance was provided to the following local authorities within the Electorate of Capricornia under the former Government’s Capital Assistance for Leisure Facilities Program for the construction of sporting facilities.

Electoral Division of Capricornia: Recipients of Department of Veterans’ Affairs Pension (Question No. 486)

Mr Carige:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

How many persons in the Electoral Division of Capricornia receive pensions from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and how many persons are receiving each type of pension.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

There are 2661 persons in the Electoral Division of Capricornia who receive pensions from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The numbers of persons in receipt of each kind of pension are shown in the table below. It should be noted that some pensioners are in receipt of more than one type of pension.

Bureau of Transport Economics: Freight Movement Estimates for 1975-76 (Question No. 488)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. What progress has been made by the Bureau of Transport Economics in the preparation of freight movement estimates for 1975-76.
  2. When is it expected the estimates will be available to the Parliament.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. The Bureau of Transport Economics is currently preparing estimates of Australian frieght movements for 1975-76. It is envisaged that separate publications will be prepared showing estimates of (i) sea movements; (ii) rail movements; and (iii) road movements, and total movements by all transport modes.
  2. Published estimates for (i) and (ii) above should be available later this year, and for (iii) in 1 978.

Mr Vincent Teresa (Question No. 495)

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

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

On what date and at what office did Mr Vicent Teresa:

seek and

b ) receive a visa for his visit to Australia.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Mr Teresa applied to the Australian ConsulateGeneral San Francisco on 8/2/77 using another name which it is understood he had assumed legally;
  2. The visa was issued on 8/2/77.

Canberra Showground Trust: Proposed Lighting Poles (Question No. 497)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 23 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Can he say whether the Canberra Showgrounds Trust is planning to erect approximately 20 lighting poles on the Canberra showgrounds arena.
  2. If so, will implementation of this plan restrict the largest uncluttered showground arena in Australia, create unacceptable hazards which would preclude the conduct of equestrian events on it and unnecessarily restrict spectator’s view of any arena activity.
  3. Will he give an assurance that he will require the Showgrounds Trust, prior to proceeding further with their plans, to consult with responsible representatives of users of the showgrounds to ensure that the lighting system installed does not inhibit the use of the arena for the many purposes for which it is required.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) The Canberra Showground Trust, as the Statutory Authority responsible for the management and development of the Showground, is at present considering alternative lighting plans for trotting at the Showground.

One of the options being considered by the Trust includes the erection of lighting poles on the inner arena.

The Trust is aware of the concern of some users and is already discussing alternatives, costs and user implications with interested organisations.

I will not direct the Trust in these matters. To do so would be to reduce those management intitiatives which are intended ultimately to make the Trust financially independent of Government.

Defence Equipment: New and Replacement Costs (Question No. 515)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. What were or will be the costs per item at date of (a) agreement to purchase and (b) acquisition, or if on order, anticipated acquisition of (i) Leopard tanks, (ii) Ml 13 Personnel Carriers (iii) Fire Support Vehicles (iv) 5 ton trucks (Mark 5 or equivalent) and (v) Rover % ton long wheel base trucks.
  2. What is the estimated replacement cost per item at today’s prices.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) In contractual arrangements with suppliers of equipment, a basic price for the equipment is agreed between the Australian Government and the suppliers. Additionally, provision may be made in the contract for the payment of costs arising from escalation of labour and material on a previously agreed basis.

Replacement items would normally be purchased under similar contractual conditions as those applying to a current order, in the event of a replacement order necessitating the re-opening of a production line, costs associated with this would add to the unit cost of the replacement item and these may require further negotiation.

Generally the price per unit for major defence equipment items is supplied by manufacturers ‘in confidence ‘. In view of this it would not be appropriate for me to divulge the detailed information you seek.

Raid on South African Council of Churches and Christian Institute Offices by South African Government (Question No. 389)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports that the South African Council of Churches and Christian Institute Offices in Johannesburg have been raided by the South African Government.
  2. If so, did the Australian Council of Churches express alarm at the reported raid during which security police allegedly sealed the building and after an 8 hour search left with boxes of files.
  3. Can he say whether Bishop Graham Delbridge, President of the Australian Council of Churches, said, among other things, in a statement issued in December 1 976, that all people and all nations must work harder to bring an end to the inhuman and abhorrent apartheid system, and did the Council ask him to increase government pressure on South Africa to end apartheid.
  4. Has the Government any additional information about this raid and other brutal actions in the name of apart.heid in South Africa.
  5. Has the Government taken any further action to show its abhorrence.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government is aware of reports that the offices of the South African Council of Churches and the Christian Institute were raided by the South African Security Police on 26 November 1976, that certain documents were confiscated and that several members of both organisations were detained for questioning. The Australian Embassy in Pretoria subsequently confirmed these reports
  2. and (3) The Australian Council of Churches did indeed make known its alarm at the reported raids. In addition to his public statement in December, the President of the Council, Bishop Graham Delbridge, said in a telegram to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Council was pleased at Australia’s strong stand in the United Nations against apartheid but believed that more must be done to seek peaceful change in South Africa.
  3. Information reeived from the Australian Embassy in Pretoria has indicated that all persons detained during the raids have since been released and that to date no charges have been laid in connection with the raids. From this and other information available it is clear that large numbers of opponents of the South African Government’s apartheid policies remain in detention under the provisions of a variety of oppressive security laws.
  4. The Australian Embassy in Pretoria has been instructed to take an appropriate opportunity to inform the South African authorities of the concern being expressed in Australia about the action taken against the two organisations, and similar action taken against others opposed to the South African Government’s apartheid policies. The Government has made known to the South African Government on numerous occasions and in the clearest terms its opposition to the policy of apartheid and will continue to do so.

East Timor Refugees: Applications for Australian Visas (Question No. 564)

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

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. Did he state on 9 December 1976 (Senate Hansard page 2994) that applications for visas to Australia had been received to 25 November 1976 from 1,511 East Timor refugees now in Portugal
  2. Did he state on 24 March 1977 (Hansard page 548) that as at 17 March 1977 some 560 East Timorese evacuees in Portugal had applied for movement to Australia.
  3. If so, why has the number applying to come to Australia fallen so.
Mr Mackellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The figure of 1,5 1 1 persons mentioned in the reply to Senate Question on Notice No. 1463 had been derived from information recieved from the Migration Officer in Madrid who was then responsible for Immigration activities in Portugal, on the basis of actual applications received and from lists in Portugese of what might be called ‘tentative’ applications submitted from various sources.

Subsequently it became apparent that there was some duplication among actual applications and the lists provided. This is evident from official documents on Timorese refugees in Portugal compiled by the Commissariat for Evacuees of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which state that the number of Timorese who arrived in Portugal on evacuation flights totalled 1,392 persons.

Moreover, many of the people on the list of ‘tentative applicants’ have not subsequently applied.

Formal applications held at 1 7March 1 977 from Timorese evacuees in Portugal covered 564 persons.

Quarterly Real Output and Input-Output Tables (Question No. 60)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Does the Australian Bureau of Statistics compile quarterly statistics showing (a) real output on an industry-by-industry basis and (b) input-output tables by industry. If not, why not.

Mr Lynch:
LP

– The following reply is provided to the honourable member’s question:

  1. It has not been possible to develop quarterly estimates because of limitations on the data available and on ABS resourses. Annual estimates of gross product at constant prices, industry-by-industry, have been published for the years 1962-63 to 1973-74. It is expected that these will be updated to 1975-76 about mid-1977. Indexes of annual production by manufacturing industries, in some detail, are expected to be published in the near future. In addition, data are now being obtained to enable the preparation and publication of a quarterly index of manufacturing production by early next year.
  2. Input-output tables have been compiled for the years 1958-59, 1962-63 and 1968-69. It is expected that a further table will be compiled for the year 1974-75. Compilation of such tables is a lengthy task, dependent on the availability of a wide range of data and involving considerable demands on ABS resources. Consideration is being given to producing a provisional table for 1974-75 by extrapolating the 1968-69 table using annual and not fully comprehensive data, but it would not be practicable to do this on a quarterly basis.

Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund (Question No. 61)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. Have the particulars sought in question No. 864 (Hansard, 14 September 1976, page 1027) ever been required by a member of the Parliament prior to the date upon which I placed that question on notice. If not, what is the justification for his statement that it is not the practice to supply the information sought.
  2. Is it possible for a public servant who retired now with a salary of $2 1,250 per annum, having attained the age of 65, and having completed 20 years of service, to receive a lump sum refund of all of the contributions that he has ever made to the Superannuation Fund plus a wholly Governmentfunded pension of 50 per cent of his salary.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1) As far as can be established, prior to 14 September 1976 no member had asked for details of the contributions paid by, or the benefit entitlements of, another currently serving member by way of a parliamentary question. My office and my Department from time to time receive inquiries, including some from representatives of the media, about the entitlements of particular members. The practice followed has been not to provide such personal details on the ground that they relate to personal financial affairs. Every request by a member or former member for advice as to his own entitlements or on the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948 is, however, fully met.
  2. A public servant retiring at age 65 after 20 years service would receive a Government-financed pension of 50 per cent of his salary at retirement provided that:

    1. his 20 years service was a ‘period of contributory service for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976;
    2. he was an ‘existing contributor’ for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976; and
    3. as at 30 June 1976, he did not have any rejected units of pension under the Superannuation Act 1922.

In addition, the employee would be entitled to an additional age retirement pension, the annual rate of which would be determined having regard to his accumulated contributions (the amount of his stake in the Superannuation Fund as at 30 June 1976 and the amount of contributions paid to that Fund since 1 July 1976, including interest on those amounts since 1 July 1976) and his age on the last day of service. The maximum rate of additional pension allowed is an amount equal to 20 per cent of the employee’s final annual rate of salary; should the accumulated contributions be more than sufficient to provide a 20 per cent additional pension, the excess would be refunded to him. An employee may elect to receive a lump sum payment of his accumulated contributions in lieu of the additional age retirement pension.

Cheese (Question No. 109)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 March 1 977:

  1. Was an investigation made into the quality of imported or Australian cheeses, and a report prepared thereon.
  2. Was the report marked ‘never to be released’. If so, will he now release the repon.
  3. If he is not prepared to release the report, what is the reason.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) During 1971 the Standing Committee on Agriculture considered proposals about biological and chemical standards for cheese. A small scale survey was undertaken on a limited basis to help gauge the feasibility and practicability of imposing such standards at that time. The survey included samples from a range of cheeses of varying kinds and from different sources. However the sampling did not purport to be a statistically designed exercise, nor would that have been necessary for the purpose.

Standing Committee refrained from recommending the imposition of mandatory microbiological standards. Instead it authorised action that led over a period of years to the development of the Australian Code of Practice for Dairy Factories.

The Code, which represents a co-operative effort on the pan of all States and the Commonwealth, is already in action, with its provisions being phased-in in a way designed to assist the dairy processing industry’s efforts to improve the production of high quality cheese and other dairy products.

  1. No.
  2. Working documents of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Australian Agricultural Council can only be released on the authorisation of the Council. In view of the limited scope of the work done in 1971,I do not propose to ask Council to resurrect this material.

Electronic Intercept Stations in Australia (Question No. 112)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. In his answer to question No. 852 (Hansard, 2 November 1976, page 2255) relating to defence and scientific installations and facilities, should he have included some reference to electronic intercept stations in Australia. If not, why not.
  2. Will he now give details of these stations and by what authorities they are operated.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The policy of Australian governments has been not to provide information that might confirm or deny speculation about this subject. This remains the policy. I therefore do not propose to answer the honourable member’s question.

Electronic Intercept Stations in Australia (Question No. 113)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. Is Australia a signatory to the United KingdomUnited States of America Agreement.
  2. Is it a fact that under this Agreement, NSA operates electronic intercept stations in Australia.
  3. Does any other form of station operate in Australia under the Agreement. If so, is it operated by an Australian or an overseas authority, or is it operated under some sort of joint authority.
  4. Will he identify the participating country or countries in any such arrangement.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) See my answer to question No. 1 12.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Staff (Question No. 114)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

How many First and Second Division officers are employed in his Department.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

Thirty-six.

Full Employment Budget Outcome (Question No. 117)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What is his best estimate of the full employment Budget surplus or deficit for (a) 1975-76 and (b) 1976-77.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

See my answer provided on 7 September 1 976 to Question No. 920.

Integration Program for Commodities (Question No. 121)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What decisions were taken at the Fourth UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi about the problems of stabilising price fluctuations for important internationally traded commodities.
  2. What stand did Australia take during the discussions on these issues.
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Fourth UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi adopted Resolution 93 (IV) on an Integrated Program for Commodities.

This resolution provided for the convening of a series of preparatory meetings followed by commodity negotiation conferences between September 1976 and the end of 1978 on 1 8 specified products of particular interest to developing countries. It also provided for the convening of a negotiating conference on a common fund for financing of buffer stocks.

The objectives of the Integrated Program, as set out in the Resolution, include seeking to achieve stable conditions in commodity trade, which encompass the avoidance of excessive price fluctuations, at price levels that are remunerative and just to producers and equitable to consumers, take account of world inflation and changes in the world economic and monetary situations and promote equilibrium between supply and demand within expanding world commodity trade. The Resolution also sets out a number of measures which might be applied singly or in combination including action in the context of international commodity arrangements in the light of each commodity situation. The resolution provided a framework for future deliberations and negotiations on individual commodities and on a common fund. It did noi call for decisions to be taken on these matters in advance of such negotiations.

  1. Australia endorsed the intention and purpose of Resolution 93 (IV) on the Integrated Program for Commodities and undertook to partipate fully in the future deliberations and negotiations.

Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health: Second Report (Question No. 135)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has he set a date for the transmission to him of the second report of the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health in which it is proposed to concentrate on the development of proposals for the more effective coordination of social policy development at the Commonwealth level.
  2. If so, will it be available for the 1977-78 Budget deliberations.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) See my answer to Senate Question No. 49 (Hansard, 22 March, page 391).
  2. I am unable to indicate at this stage whether the proposed report will be available for the 1977-78 Budget deliberations.

Pre-School Funding: Letters to Premiers (Question No. 191)

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

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he write on 3 November 1976 to the Premiers to seek their thoughts on the form of Federal-State consultative arrangements on pre-school funding.
  2. If so, what have been the date and nature of their replies.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The details of correspondence between a Premier and Prime Minister are regarded as confidential.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands: Visits by Minister for Administrative Services (Question No. 195)

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

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) On what dates did the Minister for Administrative Services visit the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
  2. On what dates and with what results has the Government considered the submission which the Minister prepared after his visit (Hansard, 28 April 1976, page 1665).
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. From 23 to 25 April 1976.
  2. Future policies towards the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands are under current consideration by the Government. The Government’s decision will be made known to the Parliament at the appropriate time.

HMAS Albatross: Fire Damage (Question No. 206)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the estimate of the damage which the Navy finally gave to the Australian Fire Board in reporting on the fire at HMAS Albatross, Nowra, on Christmas Day 1967 (Hansard, 28 November 1968, page 35 16).
  2. What was the estimate of the damage which the Navy has given to the Board in reporting on the fire at HMAS Albatross on Pearl Harbour Day 1976 (Hansard, 6 December 1 976, page 3292).
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The estimated value of damage recorded by the Commonwealth Fire Board in 1968-69 Annual Report for the fire at HMAS Albatross, Nowra, New South Wales, on 24 December 1 967 is $ 1 , 602, 100.
  2. At this stage no estimated value of damage has been received from Navy concerning the fire at HMAS Albatross on 4 December 1 976.

The Department of Defence has advised the Commonwealth Fire Board that a formal report will be submitted following the findings of the Naval Board of Inquiry.

Australian Government Centres: Deferment (Question No. 208)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Which Australian Government centres, other than at Parramatta, has the Government decided to defer.
  2. When was the decision (a) taken and (b) announced in each case.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) See part (2) of the response of the Minister for Construction to parliamentary Question No. 174 on page 1653 of Hansard of 27 April 1976.
  2. (a) by the Government in February 1976; (b) no formal announcement was made.

Quarantine: Rat Infestation of Vessels (Question No. 343)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

How many vessels at (a) Fremantle, (b) Melbourne, (c) Sydney, (d) Geelong, (e)Portland, (f) Albany, (g) Geraldton, (h) Bunbury, (i) Broome, (j) Port Hedland and (k) Brisbane (i) were inspected by quarantine staff, (ii) showed evidence of rat infestation, (iii) were fumigated for rats, (iv) were baited with 1080 for rats, (v) were ordered to trap for rats, (vi) were treated by other means for rats, (vi) were treated for insect infestation during the period 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1976.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Electoral Division of Canning: Commonwealth Public Works (Question No. 351)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Construc tion, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What Commonwealth public works are:

    1. under construction and
    2. proposed in the electoral division of Canning.
  2. What is the estimated:

    1. total cost of the projects,
    2. costs of each individual project and
    3. completion date of each project.
  3. In respect of all Commonwealth public works completed in the electoral division of Canning since May 1974, what was:

    1. the project,
    2. b) the total cost of all projects,
    3. the individual cost of each project and
    4. completion date of each project.
Mr McLeay:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1), (2) and (3) The following is a list of Commonwealth public works arranged by the Department of Construction in the electoral division of Canning which are currently under construction or proposed during 1976-77, and projects completed since May 1974:

Butter: Sales to Europe (Question No. 354)

Mr Simon:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. Were approximately 18 000 tonnes of butter sold to Europe in about June 1975 from stocks held as at 30 June 1975. If so, to which countries and at what tonnage were the sales transacted.
  2. Who effected the sale, what commission was fixed, and to what companies was it paid.
  3. Was the sale made on any basis other than f.o.b. If so, on what basis.
  4. What price adjustments were made to cover any additional costs over and above those normally incurred with f.o.b. sales.
  5. If no price adjustments were made, how were those additional costs met.
  6. Did the terms of any ofthe sales cause the 1974-75 butter equalisation pool to be adversely affected and, as a result, able to return less than it otherwise should have done.
  7. Was the deficit of $lm estimated by the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalisation Committee Ltd for the 1974-75 butter equalisation pool accurate.
  8. Have any moneys from the Dairying Industry Stabilisation Fund been used to support the 1974-75 butter equalisation pool. If so, what amount was applied.
  9. Has the 1974-75 butter equalisation pool been finalised. If not, when will the computation be completed and the distribution finalised.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The details on questions 1 to 5 are based on information received from the Australian Dairy Corporation.

(2)-

The Commission on each of the above sales was S39.35 per tonne and was paid to the following companies:

Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd;

Amalgamated Co-operative Marketers (Australia) Ltd;

Alfred Barrow Pty. Ltd;

  1. L. Ballantyne Pty. Ltd;

David La very and Son Pty. Ltd;

United Milk Products Ltd.

  1. All sales were on an f.o.b. basis.
  2. and (5) The normal allowances established by the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalisation Committee Ltd (CDPEC Ltd) applied to all sales.
  3. The 1974-75 pool would have been affected by all butter sales (including the sales in question) that were made at prices below the interim equalisation values. Returns from butteroil exports would also have had an effect on the final pool return.
  4. The 1974-75 butter equalisation pool had a deficit of $156,317.27. (8)I have approved, on the recommendation of the Australian Dairy Corporation and with the agreement of the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation that the short fall in the 1974-75 butter equalisation pool be met from the Dairying Industry Stabilisation Fund.
  5. I am informed that the final particulars in respect of the 1 974-75 butter equalisation pool will be conveyed to the industry within the next month.

Insurance Legislation (Question No. 364)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) As the Australian Government insurance legislation is very similar in structure to that of the Insurance Companies Act 1974 of the United Kingdom, will he give urgent consideration to having incorporated into the Australian legislation provisions dealing with (a) control of insurance company investments and (b) oversight of the suitability of directors and other executive officers of such companies.
  2. Will he take steps to amend the Insurance Acts 1973, by including a new section 21A similar to section 7 of the United Kingdom Act, with consequential amendments to sections 22 and 27.
  3. Will he also take steps to (a) amend section 29 by inserting a new provision that a person is not a fit and proper person to manage the affairs of a body corporate, (b) amend section 52 by inserting the provision in section 39 of the United Kingdom Act, (c) insert new sections 62A, 62B and 62C similar to sections 52,53 and 54 of the United Kingdom Act and (d) amend section 30 to incorporate the investment provisions contained in section 30 of the United Kingdom Act.
  4. Will he also give urgent consideration to having similar amendments made to the Life Insurance Act 1 945.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)-(4) The Government is yet to be convinced that the highly controversial provisions contained in the United Kingdom insurance legislation in relation to the control of investments and oversight of the suitability of directors are necessary or appropriate to Australia. Insurance legislation is, however, kept under continuing review and I refer the honourable member to amendments recently introduced.

Australian Taxation Office: Officers Employed Investigating Oil Transfer Price (Question No. 365)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the number of officials of the Taxation Department investigating the transfer price charged by multinational oil companies for imported crude oil and products been reduced in the last 2 years. If so, why.
  2. How many officials of the Taxation Department are currently engaged in the investigation of the transfer price of imported crude oil and petroleum products.
  3. What is the total amount of section 136 adjustments under the Income Tax Assessment Act relating to multinational oil companies, and what proportion is directly attributable to misleading transfer prices.
  4. Is the section 136 adjustment in British Petroleum’s accounts for 1975 due to the discovery of a misleading transfer price by taxation officials.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Eight officers are fully engaged in examining all aspects of the returns of multi-national oil companies, including the purchase prices of imported crude oil and petroleum products.
  3. and (4) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that, because of the secrecy provisions contained in the Income Tax Assessment Act, he is unable to provide this information. The Commissioner has pointed out, however, that companies engaged in importing and marketing oil products are not required by law to do more than furnish in their income tax returns details of the actual prices paid for trading stock. When the Commissioner, in the exercise of discretionary powers under section 136, substitutes for these his estimate of what would have had to be paid in an arm’s length trading situation, his action does not carry an implication that the returns lodged by the taxpayers were designed to mislead or to provide less than a full and true disclosure of all the facts required by law to be disclosed.

Victorian Bushfires: Compensation for Fencing (Question No. 369)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the concern of persons who had fencing destroyed in the recent bushfires in Victoria because of the substantial difference in compensation of 25 per cent available in respect of internal fences compared with 100 percent for external boundary fences.
  2. If so, does this procedure take no account of need or the relevant levels of loss.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. The honourable member appears to have misunderstood the basis of government assistance being provided to primary producers for the restoration offences damaged by the Victorian bushfires on 12 February 1977. Assistance being provided by the Victorian Government with financial support from the Commonwealth is on the basis of grants up to a maximum of $850 per kilometre for materials used in the construction of approved new fencing abutting public roads and railways to replace fences damaged or destroyed by the bushfires. No assistance is being provided under this scheme for replacement of internal fences.
  2. The main objective of this assistance is to enable restocking of properties to commence quickly by providing a boundary fence abutting public roads and railway lines which will help provide a perimeter within which stock can beheld.

The Commonwealth is supporting a number of other schemes proposed by the Victorian Government, including an assistance scheme for immediate relief of personal hardship and distress, special housing loans and concessional loan schemes to primary producers all of which are subject to an assessment of overall losses by applicants and their ability to finance recovery from other sources. Expenditures on replacement of internal fencing are among the purposes for which the concessional loans for primary producers may be used.

Butter (Question No. 372)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 March, 1977:

  1. 1 ) How much did the recent butter promotion cost.
  2. Who devised and administered the promotion.
  3. 3 ) How is the money raised for butter promotion.
  4. What is the result ofthe promotion.
  5. Has it increased consumption in the short term and is it likely to do so in the long term. If so, in what way will it help long term consumption.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Dairy Corporation spent $480,000 on the promotion. This amount was supplemented by expenditure from individual wholesale and retail butter traders who participated in the Corporation’s campaign.
  2. The Australian Dairy Corporation devised and administered the promotion with advice from a professional advertising agency and from firms within the dairy industry.
  3. The funds available to the Australian Dairy Corporation for domestic promotion are derived from a levy imposed on whole milk and butterfat under the Dairying Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972. Currently the rate of levy for domestic promotion is 1.9 cents per 100 litres of whole milk or 47.25 cents per 100 kilograms of butterfat sold in Australia.
  4. and (5) I have been informed by the Australian Dairy Corporation that the response to the campaign was encouraging but that it is too early to quantify the results.

It will not be possible to assess the overall results of the campaign until a suitable period has elapsed following the termination of the promotion in order that the sales pattern for butter can be correctly gauged. The effect on the long term consumption of butter will also not be capable of being determined until a reasonable time period has elapsed.

I am informed that the Corporation is currently undertaking a complete review of the promotional activity.

Australian Farm Products: Marketing Representatives Overseas (Question No. 379)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In which countries are there marketing representatives for specific Australian farm products.
  2. In the case of each country and each product, what is (a) the number of representatives and (b) the name of the Government department or other body to which each representative belongs.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) The following list shows the marketing representatives employed by Commonwealth Government instrumentalities. It includes all officers whose responsibilities are primarily concerned with the marketing of specific Australian farm products:

Australian Heads of Missions: Provision of Cars (Question No. 402)

Mr Hamer:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the makes and countries of manufacture of new official cars provided to Australian Ambassadors and Heads of Mission in the 6 months ended 3 1 December 1 976.
  2. In the case of cars not of Australian manufacture, what was the cost of the car in each case.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question. (l)and(2)

Agricultural Research Funds (Question No. 415)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What initiatives is he taking to spread agricultural research funds beyond the narrow limits of the short-term needs of the industry from which they are collected.
  2. In particular, is sufficient research being done into a range of oilseed and coarse grain crops to satisfactorily cover the various soil and climatic situations in the arable areas of Australia.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Funds contributed by industry under statutory research schemes form only part of the total resources devoted to agricultural research, the major cost being borne by the Commonwealth and State governments.

Under the statutory schemes, advisory committees recommend programs considered to be of priority to the industry concerned and these programs are necessarily short term. However, agricultural research undertaken by bodies such as CSIRO and to a lesser extent State Departments of Agriculture funded from public sources tends to be more concerned with longer term needs and may complement trust fund research. Much of this work is multi-disciplinary in character and is not directed to any single industry.

The balance between short and long term research appears to be satisfactory but is kept under review.

  1. While it can always be questioned whether any quantum of research is sufficient, State Departments of Agriculture, CSIRO and universities have been giving attention in recent years to research into oilseeds and coarse grains. The Commonwealth has financially assisted on-going barley research programs.

Proposals are presently before the Government for the introduction of an oilseeds research scheme along similar lines to other statutory industry research schemes.

Skim Milk Powder Exports (Question No. 416)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 7 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Who decides the price for skim milk powder which Asia Dairy Industries offers for Australian powder it wishes to purchase for its reconstitution plants.
  2. Is it possible for that organisation to pay less than the ruling price for that type of powder and consequently increase the actual cost to the Government of underwriting that particular product.
  3. If Asia Dairy Industries earns a large profit because it is able to buy foreign powder at less than the world price, who benefits from this profit.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Dairy Corporation has the responsibility for fixing the minimum prices for all skim milk powder exports.
  2. I am informed by the Australian Dairy Corporation that its current pricing arrangements for skim milk powder differentiates between sales to approved recombiners and trader to trader spot sales. The current prices fixed to approved recombiners are lower than those fixed for trader to trader spot sales because of the Corporation’s existing contractual arrangements with its overseas plant interests.
  3. Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Australian Dairy Corporation and any profits from its operations would be reflected in its dividends which are returnable to the Dairying Industry Stabilisation Fund. The moneys in the Fund can be used for the benefit of the Australian dairy industry with the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry on the recommendation of the Australian Dairy Corporation.

Treasurer: Visit to Tokyo (Question No. 464)

Mr Morris:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the purpose of his visit to Tokyo on 1 7 and 18 January 1977.
  2. What are the names, classifications and salaries of each member of the party who accompanied him.
  3. ) What are the names of the places visited.
  4. What official consultations were undertaken.
  5. What was the cost for each member of the party for (a) travel both between Australia and Japan and within Japan, (b) accommodation and (c) other incidentals.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is contained in the response by the honourable Minister for Foreign Affairs to questions Nos 464-7.

Industrial Equity Limited (Question No. 470)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Australian Financial Review of 16 March 1977 concerning an Attorney-General’s Department opinion on Industrial

Equity Limited ‘s takeover intentions for Wm Haughton and Co. Ltd. If so, is the report correct.

  1. Did Sir Robert Southey or any other director or officer of Wm Haughton and Co. Ltd approach any Minister in the Government with a view to taking any action against Industrial Equity. If so, to whom, and when was each approach made.
  2. What sections of the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 apply to Industrial Equity, and has Industrial Equity compiled with all or any of these provisions.
  3. If Industrial Equity has not complied with any applicable sections of the Foreign Takeovers Act, what action is proposed to enforce those provisions.
  4. Can he say whether Mr Michael Cranswick was informed by Industrial Equity of its re-organisation so that it could be regarded as an Australian company.
  5. What was the nature of the re-organisation by Industrial Equity so that it could be considered an Australian company.
  6. Was the advice given by the Attorney-General’s Department given in the absence of knowledge of the recent reorganisation by Industrial Equity. If so, why.
  7. Can he say whether Industrial Equity has received legal advice that it can now be regarded as an Australian company for the purposes of the Foreign Takeovers Act. If so, what is the nature of the advice given to Industrial Equity.
  8. Is the advice received from the Attorney-General’s Department now to be regarded as incorrect in the light of the re-organisation by Industrial Equity.
  9. Were searches conducted of the share register of Industrial Equity to ascertain if it was potentially subject to the Foreign Takeovers Act. If so, what were the searches. If not, why not.
  10. Was consideration given to the voting rights of shareholders in Industrial Equity to ascertain who controlled this company. If so, what consideration. If not, why not.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. to (11) My attention has been drawn to the Press report referred to. It is not the practice for me to comment or otherwise provide information on matters concerning the application of provisions of the Foreign Takeovers Act to particular companies but in view of the references in the Press to individuals and companies the following points should be made clear. My Department did seek the advice of the Attorney-General’s Department on the relevance of certain provisions of the Foreign Takeovers Act to certain transactions undertaken by Industrial Equity Limited. This advice was not sought at the instigation of any director or officer of Wm Haughton & Co. Ltd. Certain advice was provided by Attorney-General ‘s Department on the basis of information that had been made available to the Treasury by Industrial Equity Limited from time to time. The import of the advice of the Attorney-General’s Department has been conveyed to Industrial Equity Limited which has been invited to offer any further information that may be relevant to the matter.

Division of Capricornia: Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 480)

Mr Carige:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. What has been the cost to the Commonwealth Government of financing the development and operations of the regional councils set up under the 3-year pilot phase of the Australian Assistance Plan centred in the electoral division of Capricornia.
  2. What pan of those costs was (a) grants, (b) salaries, (c) rental, (d) telephone, (e) travel and (f) incidentals.
  3. To whom, and in what amount, have these organisations allocated grants.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The only Regional Council whose boundaries include part of the electoral division of Capricornia is the Fitzroy Regional Council for Social Development based in Rockhampton.

The information provided is in respect ofthe whole area of the Council, as it is not possible to apportion the costs to the Government between divisions within the Council ‘s boundaries. The costs to the Commonwealth Government are made up as follows:

Illegal Immigrants: Division of Capricornia (Question No. 483)

Mr Carige:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many illegal immigrants applied for amnesty in the electoral division of Capricornia during 1 976.
  2. How many were accepted.
  3. Were any illegal immigrants arrested who had not applied for amnesty. If so, how many, and what were their nationalities.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Statistics with respect to electoral divisions are not maintained.

Assistance to the Aged: Budget Outlays (Question No. SOO)

Mr Fitzpatrick:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did Commonwealth outlays on the aged take 8.6 per cent ofthe Budget or 2.1 per cent of gross domestic product in 1963-66.
  2. Is it a fact that 12.3 per cent of Budget outlays wenton the aged and 3.9 percent ofthe domestic product in 1 975-76.
  3. 3 ) What percentage of total Budget outlays was allocated for the aged in 1976-77.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The source and definition ofthe figures for 1965-66 and 1975-76 which the honourable member seeks to verify are not clear. Figures calculated on the basis of the assistance to the aged’ figures shown in the Budget statements differ slightly from those quoted by the honourable member. The figures are:
  1. On the same basis outlays for assistance to the aged in 1976-77 are estimated to represent about 10.6 per cent of total Budget outlays. Estimates of gross domestic product in 1976-77 are not available but it is expected that there will be little change in the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to assistance to the aged from that in 1975-76.

Country Mail Services: Division of Darling (Question No. 509)

Mr Fitzpatrick:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. What country mail services have been cut out or reduced in frequency in the electoral division of Darling since January 1976.
  2. ) What were the reasons for the changes in each case.
  3. What procedures does the Postal Commission follow when it wishes to alter mail services to country residents.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) No mail service in the electoral division of Darling has been cut out since January 1976, and only one service has been reduced in frequency. The Bourke- Wee Toura service was reduced from twice to once weekly from 1 July 1976.
  2. After two tender calls, the very high cost which would have been incurred in continuing the Bourke- Wee Toura service on a twice weekly frequency was considered by Australia Post to be beyond that which could reasonably be expected after having regard, as required by section 7 of the Postal Services Act 1975, to the special needs for postal services of people who reside or carry on business outside the cities.
  3. When consideration is being given to alteration of a mail service, the residents concerned are informed by letter, prior to tenders being called, of the circumstances which indicate a possible change. If necessary, the letter is followed up by personal visits of an Australia Post officer to the area in which the mail service operates, to discuss the matter with the residents. In the case of the Bourke- Wee Toura service, the residents were fully informed by letter, prior to the calling of tenders and also subsequent to the acceptance of a tender for a once-weekly frequency. On neither occasion did any resident advise objection to a reduction in frequency of operation of the service.

Ensign Holdings: Alleged Representations to Trade Practices Commission (Question No. 527)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the report in the Australian Financial Review of 22 March 1977 relating to Ensign Holdings and the Trade Practices Commission. If so, is the report accurate.
  2. Did Sir Chas. McGrath make any representations to any Commissioner of the Trade Practices Commission with a view to having the decision of the single Commissioner reversed in respect of the 2 company acquisitions.
  3. If so, is there any note or record of these representations in the files of the Trade Practices Commission.
  4. If there is any note or record of these representations, will he table it in the Parliament.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes; I understand that the report accurately represents the decisions of the Commission to which it refers.
  2. to (4) The Trade Practices Act 1974 requires that the Trade Practices Commission should maintain a register in relation to all clearance and authorisation applications received by it. The register, which is available for publicinspection, is to contain all documents furnished, and particulars of oral submissions made, to the Commission in relation to such applications unless the Commission is satisfied that it is desirable to exclude such material by reason of its confidential nature. The public register files in relation to these decisions disclose no representations by Sir Chas. McGrath.

Rhodesian Migrants (Question No. 530)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does Australia accept migrants from Rhodesia.
  2. If so, how many Rhodesians were accepted for migration to Australia during 1976.
  3. What special criteria apply to prospective Rhodesian migrants that do not apply to applicants from other countries.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (3) Rhodesians currently seeking to settle in Australia must be persons not excluded from consideration by reason ofthe United Nations Security Council Resolution of 29 May 1968.

This Resolution requires that all States members of the United Nations should prevent the entry into their territories, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, of any person travelling on a Southern Rhodesian passport or a purported passport issued by or on behalf of the illegal regime in Rhodesia. The Resolution further requires that all possible measures be taken to prevent entry of persons ordinarily resident in Southern Rhodesia who are believed to have furthered or encouraged the unlawful actions of the present regime or are likely to do so.

Subject to the above considerations, Rhodesians are eligible to enter Australia for settlement under the same conditions as are migrants from other countries.

  1. Accordingly to my Department’s statistical records, the number of settler arrivals for 1976 (the figures for July onwards are preliminary figures only) who gave their country of last residence as Rhodesia was 1 70.

Wheat Stabilisation (Question No. 542)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to Press statements that an increasing number of wheat growers are bypassing the Wheat Board and selling across State borders to private agents or mills, and that the Wheat Board is investigating these sales.
  2. If so, and if the orderly marketing of wheat is being threatened, has he considered the possibility of using the levy power to overcome section 92 trading.
  3. ) Does the levy power offer an alternative and more satisfactory form of wheat stabilisation than the present complementary Federal and State legislation.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. I am well aware that the Australian Wheat Board is concerned that trade in wheat outside the Board is increasing. I am also well aware that the Board has set up a task force of its own officers to examine the problem.
  2. and (3) The question of the possible use of the Commonwealth levy powers to support the operations ofthe Australian Wheat Board has been given consideration upon occasions, but on examination some constitutional and practical difficulties have been evident. However, there is presently a reference with the Industries Assistance Commission which is to examine wheat stabilisation arrangements. This will provide an opportunity for the study of the desirability and practicability of various possible alternative measures which might be proposed to assist in stabilising the wheat industry.

Saudi Arabian Health Minister: Visit to Australia (Question No. 546)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Was the Saudi Arabian Minister for Health recently in Australia studying remote area health services.
  2. If so, has he received any request from the Saudi Arabian Minister for assistance or advice for the establishment of similar services in Saudi Arabia. If so, what is his response.
  3. Will he give sympathetic consideration to any request he may receive.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Minister for Health of Saudi Arabia, Dr H. al-Jazaeri, visited Australia, as a guest of the Government, from 1 6th to 21 March. The purpose of his visit was to look into the provision of aerial medical services to remote areas. After discussions in Canberra, he visited Alice Springs and observed the operations of the Northern Territory Aerial Medical Service and the Royal Flying Doctor Service. He was taken on a demonstration flight in a Nomad aircraft and later, in Melbourne, he inspected a Nomad aircraft fitted out for aerial medical service.
  2. No request for assistance or advice has yet been received from Dr al-Jasaeri or from the Saudi Arabian Government, but Dr al-Jazaeri indicated, during his visit, that he was considering calling upon Australian expertise in this area to help establish an aerial medical service in Saudi Arabia. Should such a request be received, it could lead to a collaborative program, with the Saudi Arabian Government paying for the services of Australian experts, rather than an Australian aid program.
  3. I would give very sympathetic consideration to any request from the Government of Saudi Arabia for a collaborative program which would allow Australia to utilize the expertise it has developed in this field so as to assist in the establishment of an aerial medical service in Saudi Arabia.

Pensioners: Electoral Division Statistics (Question No. 558)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 March 1 977:

How many pensioners reside in each electoral division.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The latest statistics of pensioners in electoral divisions, by type of pension, compiled by the Department of Social Security are in respect ofthe position at 30 June 1976. 1 understand that booklets containing this information were forwarded to the honourable member’s office on 30 March. Statistics of pensioners residing in electoral divisions are not maintained by the Department and have to be compiled manually from statistics of pensioners living in the relevant postcode areas. To update the information contained in the booklets to 30 March 1977 would require many man-hours’ work which cannot be undertaken at present.

Pensioners: Western Sydney (Question No. 559)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

How many persons are receiving (a) age pensions, (b) invalid pensions, (c) wives’ pensions, (d) widows’ pensions and (e) supporting mothers’ benefits in the electoral divisions of Chifley, Macarthur, Macquarie, Mitchell, Parramatta, Prospect and Werriwa.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

See answer to question No. 558.

A.C.T. Electricity Authority: Environmental Impact Statement (Question No. 568)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Did the A.C.T. Electricity Authority state in paragraph 5.2. 1 . on page 6 1 of its Environmental Impact Statement on the North Canberra 1 32 kv Sub-transmission Development and Extension to Ainslie/Kingston that little information is available on native mammals in the area.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that a wealth of information is available and that the Department of the Capital Territory published a booklet in 1976 on the mammals etc. in the Ainslie-Majura Reserve.
  3. Is it a fact that environmental impact statements presented to the public for comment by Commonwealth instrumentalities are considered to be drafts and no serious attempt is made to present a finished statement.
  4. If so, is he satisfied with this situation.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. My Department is aware of the booklet and its contents and has drawn them to the attention of the A.C.T. Electricity Authority since the public presentation of the Authority ‘s Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
  3. Under the administrative procedures of the Environment Protection Act, EISs released for public comment are termed Draft Statements. They are not considered unfinished or inadequate documents. A Draft EIS is prepared by the proponent after consultation with my Department regarding the issues that need to be examined and is then released for public comment. It is expected to be a complete and comprehensive document. I should nevertheless emphasise that the draft document remains the work of the proponent. The responsibility for conveying factual information in the statement is clearly that of the proponent and not of my Department. With respect to public comment, it is often the case that the particular expertise or local knowledge of members of the public is greater than those available to the proponent. For this reason public comments often add greater depth and understanding to the environmental assessment of a project made by the proponent. The procedures under the Environment Protection Act recognise that revisions may need to be made to the Draft EIS by the proponent in the light of comments raised during public examination. Only when these are made, does the draft become a final EIS. This is then subject to a detailed examination by my Department which is submitted to me in the form of a report. It is on the basis of this report that I make my own recommendations on the proposal.
  4. I am satisfied with the situation as described in my answer to question ( 3 ) above.

Social Welfare Programs: Western Sydney (Question No. 239)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What expenditures have been made in recent years under major programs administered by the Department of Social Security in the electoral divisions of Chifley, Macquarie, Mitchell, Parramatta, Prospect and Werriwa (Hansard. 9 December 1 976, page 374 1 ).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Details of expenditure by electoral divisions are not maintained by my department.

However, some information about expenditures for more recent periods under certain major programs is available for the divisions of Chifley, Macquarie, Mitchell, Parramatta, Prospect and Werriwa as follows:

Scientific and Technical Co-operation between Australia and other Countries (Question No. 263)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What activities were undertaken in Australia and in other countries in 1976 under agreements for scientific and technical co-operation between Australia and those countries?

Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

The following activities took place under Agreements for scientific and technical co-operation during 1976:

U.S.IAustralia Agreement for Scientific and Technical Co-operation (signed 16 October 1968; renewed 30 July 1973)

Fifteen individual scientists from the U.S. visited scientists in Australia, and four from Australia visited scientists in the U.S. for the purpose of engaging in research work.

The details are:

Professor B. C. Burchfiel of Rice University, Houston, visited Professor D. A. Brown of the Australian National University to work on Comparative Study of the Tasman Orogenic Belt and the Cordilleran Orogenic Belt of the Western United States’ from 26 November 1975 to August 1976.

Professor W. R. Webber of the University of New Hampshire visited Dr K. Fenton of the University of Tasmania to work on ‘Cosmic Ray Physics and X-Ray Astronomy’ from 7 January 1976 to 7 September 1976.

Professor D. Stouffer of the University of Cincinnati visited Dr J. F. Williams of the University of Melbourne to work on Biomechanics and Continuum Plasticity’ from 19 January 1976 to 3 1 December 1976.

Professor C. T. Prewitt of the State University of New York, Stony Brook, visited Professor B. Hobbs of Monash University to work on ‘Domain Structures in Minerals’ from 28 January 1976 to 28 September 1976.

Dr P. A. Ianna of the University of Virginia visited Professor O. J. Eggen of the Australian National University to work on ‘Astrometric Studies of Nearby Stars from the Southern Hemisphere’ from January to December 1976.

Professor P. Gerhardt of Michigan State University visited Dr W. G. Murrell of the CSIRO Division of Food Research to work on Basic Resistance Mechanisms of Bacterial Spores’ from 8 February to 26 April 1976.

Dr E. P. Ting and Mr Hanscomb of the University of California, Riverside, visited Dr C. B. Osmond of the Australian National University to work on ‘Environmental Control of Photosynthesis and Growths of Cacti (Opuntia)’ from 30 March to 12 April 1976.

Drs P. E. Nelson and T. A. Toussoun of Pennsylvania State University visited Dr L. W. Burgess of the University of Sydney to work on ‘The Biology of Fusarium Roseum ‘ from 1 April to 30 June 1976.

Dr F. L. Crane of Purdue University visited Professor F. Gibson of the Australian National University to work on ‘Electron Transport and Energy Coupling Systems in E. Coli’ from 20 September to 20 October 1 976.

Dr R. G. Roper of the School of Aerospace Engineering, Atlanta, visited Dr W. G. Elford of the University of Adelaide to work on ‘Joint Radio Meteor Wind Studies of the Upper Atmosphere’ from 9 to 30 October 1976.

Professor T. Kailath of Stanford University visited Professor Anderson of the University of Newcastle to work on ‘Multivariable Control Systems’ from 9 November to 4 December 1976.

Professors Professor P. R. Ehrlich and J. D. Roughgarden of Stanford University visited Professor F. H. Talbot of Macquarie University to work on ‘Research Aspects of Coral Reef Fish Communities of the Great Barrier Reef in December 1976 for 3 weeks.

Professor A. E. Ringwood of the Australian National University, Professor J. F. Lovering of the University of Melbourne and Dr S. R. Taylor of the Australian National University visited NASA facilities in Houston, United States of America to participate in the Lunar Science Conference for a week in March 1976.

Professor R. W. Robinson of Monash University visited Professor F. Harary of the University of Michigan (U.S.A.) to work on Graphical Enumeration Problems in Physical Sciences’ from 6 December 1976 to 15 January 1977.

Four seminars were held under the Agreement as follows: on ‘Fruit Flies’ in Honolulu from 28 November to 2 December 1976; on ‘Plant Response to Salinity ‘ at Riverside, California, from 26 to 28 April 1 976; on ‘Determination of Momentum Wave Function in Atomic Molecular and Nuclear Systems’ at Bloomington, Indiana, from 31 May to 4 June 1976; on ‘Electric Arc Interruption and Power Testing’ held in Sydney from 17 to 21 May 1976.

Ongoing activities were as follows: the Lunar Laser Ranging Program involving the National Mapping Division, Department of National Resources and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA). a High Energy Physics Program involving the Department of Physics of the University of Melbourne and the Department of Physics of Indiana University. five projects using the LANDSAT-2 facility, titled: ‘Mapping Islands, Reefs and Shoals in the Oceans surrounding Australia’; ‘Survey of Capeweed Distribution in Australia in Relation to Climate, Landforms, Soil Types and Management Practices’; Water UtilisationEvapotranspiration and Soil Moisture Monitoring in the South East Region of South Australia’; ‘New England, Australia, Structures in Granitic Bathyliths and Associated Foldbelts in Relation to Mineral Resources’: and ‘Daly Basin- Development Monitoring’.

) An administrative visit was made to Australia by the United States Manager of the Program in April and May 1976.

India/Australia Science and Technology Agreement (signed 26 February 1975)

Two Indian scientists visited Australia:

Professor M. V. Krishna Murthy and Dr S. Srinivasa Murthy, from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, visited Australia in September 1976 to attend a conference on refrigeration and to visit institutions in Sydney and Melbourne involved in solar energy research.

An administrative visit was made to India by a science delegation led by the Secretary, Department of Science.

FRG/Australia Science and Technological Agreement (signed 24 August 1 976 )

Two visits were made:

An industrial delegation from the FRG visited Australia in June and July 1976 to discuss the possibility of a joint Australia-FRG study of the economic feasibility of establishing a large-scale coal liquefaction plant in Australia.

The Secretary, Department of Science, and an officer of the Department visited the FRG on 1 4 and 15 October 1976 for discussions with FRG officials.

Australia/U.S.S.R. Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement (signed 15 January 1975)

Ten Russian scientists visited Australia and seven Australian scientists visited the U.S.S.R. for the purpose of engaging in research. Details are as follows:

Dr I. W. McLaren of the Victorian Department of Agriculture visited U.S.S.R. from 4 July to 1 1 September, and Mr M. Grimm of the Western Australian Department of Agriculture visited U.S.S.R. from 18 July to 1 1 September 1976, for a specific entomological study on biological control.

Dr D. L. Jauncey of the CSIRO Division of Radio Physics visited U.S.S.R. from 7 to 20

July for discussion of the results of the Australia/U.S.S.R./U.S.A. Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry experiment conducted in April and May 1976.

Dr B. R. Champ of the CSIRO Division of Entomology and Mr M. Connell of the Australian Wheat Board visited U.S.S.R. from 18 July to 12 August and 30 August to 9 October 1976 to study improved methods of preventing damage by insect pests to stored grain products.

Dr R. J. Lawn of the CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures and Dr R. N. Oram of the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry visited U.S.S.R. from 3 to 24 August 1976 to study breeding of oilseed crops and lupins.

Dr V. I. Kostenko of the Institute of Space Research visited Australia from 22 April to 9 May 1976 in connection with the Australia/U.S.S.R./U.S.A. Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry experiment.

Dr I. D. Ryabchikov of the Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits, Petrography, Mineralogy and Geochemistry of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. visited Australia from 1 1 September to 7 December 1976 to work at the Australian National University on the solubility of carbon dioxide in magmas at high pressures and how this affects crystallisation of various minerals from the magmas.

Dr I. P. Proskura of the Ukrainian Scientific Research Institute of Fodder and Ms T. G. Novikova of the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Sheep and Goat Breeding visited Australia from 23 September to 10 October 1976 to study methods of increasing pasture productivity.

Dr L. A. Trisvyatsky of the All.Union Scientific Research Institute of Grain and Grain Products visited Australia from 16 to 31 October 1976 and Drs G. A. Zakladnoy and S. A. Sheltova of the same Institute from 16 October to 12 December 1976 to study prevention of damage by insect pests to stored grain products.

Dr A. M. Chernozubov of the All.Union Institute of Selective Genetics visited Australia from 4 to 18 November 1976 to work at the CRISO Division of Plant Industry on application of the phytotron.

Dr Y. P. Uyasov and Dr V. M. Malofeev of the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Academy of Sciences of U.S.S.R. visited Australia from 18 November to 12 December 1976 to conduct pulsar observations using the radiotelescope of the University of Tasmania.

One seminar was held: on Solar Radio Emission, at Leningrad, from 4 to 19 September 1976. It was attended by eight Australian scientists.

Two visits were made by delegations:

A delegation of five Russian scientists visited Australia in January and February 1976 to study the possibilities of co-operation in the field of entomology.

A delegation consisting of the Senior Adviser on Science of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Chief of the Division of Entomology, CSIRO, attended a meeting of the Review Commission in Moscow from 22 to 27 May 1976 to discuss matters relating to implementation of the Agreement.

Academician A. V. Sidorenko, a Vice-President of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., and Dr Kartashov, were members of the Soviet delegation to the XXV session of the International Geological Congress in Sydney from 16 to 25 August 1976. After the Congress Academician and Mrs Sidorenko and Dr Kartashov toured geological sites and academic institutions in Australia until 6 September 1976.

Telegram Charges (Question No. 448)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, on 22 March 1977, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was the decision to reduce the telegram rate in remote areas from 12c to 9c made at Government direction or ministerial suggestion.
  2. If so, will the Government compensate Telecom for the cost of this change.
  3. Is this reduction likely to increase losses on telegram operations. If so, by what sum.
  4. Will the reduction result in a further increase in telegram charges to those persons without a private telephone.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. No. Telecom Australia after consultation with the Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) recommended the reduction in charges. The reduced charges have regard to the particular circumstances of people living in more remote areas whose only form of speedy communication is by telegram.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Telegram revenue from the Outpost Radio Service is shared between Telecom Australia and the RFDS. The loss of revenue to Telecom Australia is expected to be in the order of $ 100,000 annually.
  4. No. This earnings loss would be offset by earnings from the total activities of Telecom Australia.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 April 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770419_reps_30_hor104/>.