House of Representatives
25 May 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 2. IS p.m., and read prayers.

page 1793

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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 sheweth 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 William McMahon, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Lucock and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Governor-General

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, although we accept the verdict of the Australian people in the 1975 election, we do not accept the right of a Governor-General to dismiss a Prime Minister who maintains the confidence of the House of Representatives.

We believe that the continued presence of Sir John Kerr as Governor-General is a cause of division among the Australian people.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will call on Sir John Kerr to resign as Australian Governor-General.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Les Johnson and Mr Morris. Petitions received.

Citizen Band Radio

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

That a citizen radio service should be introduced on the 27 MHz frequency band incorporating frequencies 26.965 MHz to 27.255 MHz enabling use of good quality 23 channel AM and AM/SSB radio equipment currently available on the Australian market. There shall also be additionally an extension of this service provided for in the VHF/UHF spectrum within 3 years as the usage of the citizen’s radio service increases.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should, immediately introduce legislation to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act and regulations to allow such a citizen’s radio service to function legally.

These amendments should allow the service to develop to the benefit of the people and also allow self regulation through the National Citizen’s Radio Association as the united representative body of citizen’s radio operators working in conjunction with your departmental representatives.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Dr Cass. Petition received.

Whaling

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

That due to the new information on whale communication, behaviour and intelligence, and to the depleted state of most of the great whale stocks and the uncertainty associated with whale population estimates, that commercial whaling is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Australians. It is urged that immediate steps be taken to end this activity.

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

Compulsory Retirement of Australian Government Employees

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

That Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill first introduced in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1976. The basis for opposition includes the following reasons:

  1. 1 ) The grounds constituting ‘due cause’ for termination of services of tenured staff are expanded beyond those already available in existing legislation thereby introducing subjective discretionary powers which are inconsistent with career service expectations and entitlements.
  2. The Bill relegates to subordinate legislation or administrative direction matters affecting substantive rights of employees including the scale of compensation, the composition and powers of the appellate tribunal, and the criteria upon which services may be terminated.
  3. Existing rights of reinstatement in tenured employment are abrogated by the Bill.
  4. Agreement has not been reached on a number of matters which should have been finalised before any attempt to introduce legislation. These include: an arbitral determination on redundancy arrangements; benefits; procedures.
  5. As currently drafted the Bill overrides entitlements under Arbitration awards.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject passage of any legislation to extend powers of compulsory retirement of Australian Government employees unless and until any variation has been agreed with staff representatives.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Fry. 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,

Petition received. by Mr Les Johnson. 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 Commissions, 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,

Petition received. by Mr Kelly. Petition 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.

Petition received.

Royal Commission on Petroleum

The petition of certain members of the Service Station Association of N.S.W. Ltd, and certain members of the motoring public of N.S.W. respectfully sheweth:

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 Dr Klugman.

Petition received.

Rhodesia

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

That the Charter of the United Nations clearly precludes it from interference in the domestic affairs of a country or from obstructing the free transmission of news and information between individuals and between nations.

That the United Nations, in apparent illegality, has imposed many restrictions and sanctions upon Rhodesia which has been remarkably free from the bloodshed and turmoil of Northern and Central African lands, even to the extent now of actively encouraging armed conflict against the legally elected Government of Rhodesia.

Lord Graham as Minister of External Affairs and Defence has said: ‘International Communism is our enemy, all this talk of political advancement and majority rule is no more than a smokescreen in the early skirmishes of an assualt upon the whole of Africa . . . It is even difficult to see this enemy because it is not merely attacking us, but on a broad front is attacking the whole world order, its standards, its law and order, its moralities, its churches, its patriotisms, its philosophies and even much of its learning . . .

That Communist Chinese infiltration in much of Africa over many years, and Cuban Communist troops reported to number 23 000 are dominating nearby Angola, and possess modern missiles etc.

It is urgent that Mozambique, now under Communist domination and which has a common border with Rhodesia, does not receive any further aid from the Commonwealth Government of Australia, which has benefited mainly, the terrorist guerilla movements that are responsible for the deaths of many Rhodesian people.

It is urgent for the Australian people to determine for themselves, the actual facts of the Rhodesian struggles.

It is urgent that the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, will observe common justice and proper humanity by inviting only authorised representatives of the present Government of Rhodesia to Australia, to do what they have been deprived to do previously, present their case fully and publicly so that this can be examined and tested, without interference, and so that the eventual impact on Australia’s own security and defence alliances can be gauged with better accuracy.

Your petitioners request urgent action to be taken immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd.

Petition received.

Taxation

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

That the existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would:

  1. 1 ) be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States;
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same;
  3. require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not introduced.

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

Teaching of Community Languages

To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain parents, citizens and teachers of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That we, the undersigned, consider that the failure to offer community languages as school curriculum subjects in schools in appropriate areas of this state is disadvantaging migrant children educationally, alienating them from their families and their cultural heritage and inhibiting their social development.

That the educational, emotional and social development of migrant children can be best assured by the provision of opportunities for them to learn their native languages at primary and secondary level. Confirmation of this view can be found in the report of the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools tabled in the Senate on 8 December 1976.

That the opportunity afforded by the introduction of community languages into the school curriculum to children of non-migrant origin to study community languages will assist these children to develop a better understanding of ethnic communities and will contribute to the creation of a better integrated society within the state.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives direct the introduction of the appropriate community language/languages into the curriculum of primary and secondary schools in all areas where the appropriate ethnic groups regard the introduction of these languages as essential or desirable for the welfare of their children.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Ruddock. Petition received.

page 1795

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) leaves Australia today to attend the Conference for International Economic Co-operation, a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Law of the Sea Conference. He will also accompany me to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to be held in London. He is expected to return on 3 July. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 1795

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1795

QUESTION

HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Health whether his attention has been drawn to a report that several members of the Hospital and Health Services Commission, including the head of the School of Health Administration at the University of New South Wales, the medical superintendent of Melbourne’s Alfred Hospital and the federal secretary of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, will not be reappointed to the Commission when their terms of office expire? As this reported decision has provoked very strong criticism from the Australian Institute of Hospital Administrators, can the Minister inform the House whether the Government intends to restructure the Commission by terminating these appointments? What experience and qualifications would any new commissioners bring to the task of development of health services that would justify such an action?

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

-Yes, my attention has been drawn to those reports. The Government has decided to restructure the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. Dr Sax will continue to be Chairman of that Commission. I have notified the present serving members of their future in regard to their role on that Commission. I have reappointed other members to it. The members of the Commission will be heads of branches within my Department. I will be appointing advisory committees to the Commission in due course.

page 1796

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Health aware of speculation in the community that the Government may withdraw subsidies to private health insurers? Can the Minister inform the House whether there is any truth in this speculation?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-I want to say at the outset that I will not be drawn into any comment upon the mischievous speculation that has been canvassed on certain aspects of the Budget as it might affect the health area.

Mr Kelly:
Mr HUNT:

– But, I give a firm assurance to those associated with private and religious hospitals that the Government will not take any decisions or actions that will disadvantage in any way the private hospitals vis-a-vis the public hospitals in this country. The Government recognises and applauds the tremendous role, the excellent role, that they play in caring for the sick. This Government supports private enterprise and certainly in that context we will be supporting the private hospitals and the religious hospitals. I hope that that statement allays their fears and I hope it tends to lessen the amount of correspondence that I am getting on the issue.

page 1796

QUESTION

PRICE OF COAL EXPORTS TO JAPAN

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for National Resources seen reports in the Sydney Morning Herald suggesting that the steel mills of Japan will be successful in holding down coal prices, denying Australian companies the. benefits of devaluation and normal price increases? Is the Minister aware that the tactic of the mills is to penalise the major Australian negotiating companies by threatening those companies with a reduction in tonnage if they do not accept lower prices? Does he realise that the effect of this could be a loss of up to $2 a tonne over 35 million tonnes, which would mean a loss of $70m in a full year? Will the Minister give a firm statement to the House, and thus to the steel mills, that the government will invoke the export control powers to ensure that there will be a uniform uplift in contract levels for coal taken by Japan so that we do not have the present situation where

Queensland is getting an uplift of 85 to 90 per cent and South Coast coal producers are getting uplifts of only 70 to 75 per cent? I ask the Minister whether it is his view that this uniformity in contract tonnage will leave the Australian companies then clear to negotiate a firm price. Will this not overcome the major problems for the industry?

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

– In relation to the negotiations with the Japanese steel mills regarding both iron ore and coking coal exports, there were preliminary discussions with these groups and the Japanese steel mills in which the attitude of the Australian Government was indicated. During those discussions I pointed out that it was the Government’s wish to see the full effects of devaluation passed on to Australia. Since then there has been a series of negotiations. The first of these to be concluded was about the export of coal from the Newcastle port. Those negotiations have been concluded to the satisfaction of both the exporters and the Japanese steel mills. A new round of negotiations is now going on with the South Coast mines. I have been keeping very closely in touch with those negotiations. I have also had to send messages to Japan regarding those negotiations. I do not wish to say any more at this time about those messages but I have made it quite clear in my negotiations with Japan and in statements to this House that if we see reason for using our export controls because of unfair and unreasonable prices or treatment we shall use them.

page 1796

QUESTION

PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT TO MEMBERS OF TURKISH COMMUNITY

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of allegations that a large scale fraud has been perpetrated in Sydney, involving illegal payments of unemployment benefits to members of the Turkish community? If so, what factual information can the Minister give to the House in relation to those allegations?

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

– I have been given preliminary advice that Commonwealth Police believe that they have uncovered a major fraud involving the illegal payment of unemployment benefit to members of the Turkish community in Sydney. I understand that the fraud involves the establishment of false identities and subsequent fraudulent claims through the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of those false identities. The possible occurrence of frauds of this kind was one of the reasons why the Government established the Myers inquiry to look into all aspects of policy and administration concerning unemployment benefit but, notwithstanding the results of that inquiry, my Department is already co-operating with the Department of Social Security to tighten the procedures in this area in order to detect and reduce the possibility of abuses of the kind mentioned by the honourable member.

page 1797

QUESTION

AIRLINE PILOTS: ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION EMBARGO

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Transport: Is it a fact that he has approved a reduction from 12 hours to 8 hours in the time during which airline pilots must not have consumed alcohol before a flight? Is it a fact that the airline pilots’ organisations are opposed to this reduction of time? What valuable contribution will it make to airline safety to reduce the time?

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

-It is a fact that, in line with international practice, we have reduced the embargo on drinking by airline pilots from 12 hours to 8 hours. It is not a fact that this is not supported by the Federation of Air Pilots; it supports the reduction. It is a fact that the 12-hour embargo was supported by a minority group of pilots who have their own organisation. I regret to say that the name of the organisation escapes me for the moment. But the Federation of Air Pilots, which speaks for the majority of pilots in this country, supports the reduction. As I have said, the decision to reduce the time was taken after studying international practice.

page 1797

QUESTION

COAL-BASED MOTOR SPIRIT PLANT

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Overseas Trade. A delegation of West German industrialists under the leadership of Professor Imhausen recently visited Australia. I understand that the delegation came to Australia to discuss the possibility of establishment of a coal-based motor spirit plant. Can the Minister give any details as to the size of the plant and the capital investment envisaged?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– It is true that a German mission has been here, for the second time, to look at the prospect of converting coal to motor spirit. It was led by Professor Imhausen whom I met last year both in Germany and here. He is probably the world authority in this area. He originally came out to Australia to see what the prospects were and whether we had suitable coals and fields of sufficient size. He has come back with a proposal. My Department has arranged for him to consult with mining interests and State governments. The proposal envisages conducting a feasibility study on a $2.9m a ton per annum synthetic fuel plant which produces about 10 per cent liquid petroleum gas, 45 per cent gasolene and 45 per cent distillate from about 8.6 million tons of coking coal or 9 million tons of brown coal. Such a project would cost in the vicinity of $ 1,300m. Whilst the investment might seem enormous at this stage, it does appear that the conversion of coal to motor spirits will become a reality in the 1980s. The Germans believe that a feasibility study now costing about $3m could be the start of such a very large investment.

I am sure that the State governments of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland will be particularly interested to consider the proposal which will mean a sharing investment by the German Government and by Australian interests. This study was carried out under the auspices of a scientific and technological agreement that we now have with Germany. I believe it offers enormous potential for our coal industry and also for meeting the future oil needs of this country.

page 1797

QUESTION

ECONOMY: REDUCTION IN REAL WAGES

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Treasurer agree that yesterday’s partially indexed wage rise provides a further reduction in real wages? Is the Treasurer aware that yesterday’s official figures indicate that there are few grounds for optimism for industrial output recovery? Finally, I ask: If devaluation has not led to industrial recovery but instead will add significantly to inflation, how is the Government going to increase consumer spending when real wages are declining?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– The’ Government consistently has made its position clear about devaluation and the benefits that will flow to the exporting and importing competing sectors of the Australian economy. It has also consistently made clear the fact that there will naturally be lag times involved before these benefits are in fact perceptible throughout the Australian economy. I am very much aware of the industrial production indices which were announced yesterday. But as the honourable gentleman ought to be aware also, of course, if he looks at the Australian and New Zealand Bank index of quantity of factory production, and particularly if he looks at that in the normal seasonally adjusted base on which that production series is released, the index increased during the months of January, February and March.

In so far as economic growth is concerned, which I recall was the essential nub of the question raised by the honourable member, there are grounds for optimism. The honourable gentleman is very much aware of the figure of 2.3 per cent for the March quarter and the significant curbing of inflation during the year ending with that March quarter. Retail sales after falling in January increased by 2.2 per cent in February with a further increase of 2.1 per cent in March. The value of exports for the month of April was a record; it totalled some $ 1,005m. In addition, if the honourable gentleman reads the financial Press of this country, he will be very much aware of the consistent stream of very healthy profit results that have been reported.

So far as additional areas of confidence which obviously will have an impact on the community at large are concerned, the honourable gentleman ought to reflect on the report that I made yesterday in the House as to the very significant success of the May loan reaching some $450m. New capital spending, which is very significant in the mining and mineral industry, is expected by the Statistician to increase in that industry during the current six month period by around 40 per cent. I refer also to the more optimistic surveys which recently came out of the Associated Chamber of Manufactures of Australia-Bank of New South Wales survey for the June quarter. Obviously, as the Government has said on many other occasions, not every indicator at the present time is moving forward. There is clearly -

Mr Keating:

– You can say that again.

Mr LYNCH:

-I do not think that the honourable member is moving forward in his quest for deputy leadership. I might put that thought on the record.

Mr Hurford:

– I know just as much about that as you do.

Mr LYNCH:

-I hear another contender yelping about this question while the present incumbent looks very embarrassed. I shall close on that note.

page 1798

QUESTION

NORTH-WEST SHELF: NATURAL GAS

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for National Resources concerns the development of the huge natural gas fields in the North-West Shelf. Is the Government examining the proposals for the development of those fields? Can the Minister say what stage has been reached with the Western Australian Government in the joint venture? Further, can the Minister give any indication as to when the detailed feasibility study will commence?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-The honourable member from Western Australia obviously has a pretty keen interest in this matter. Not only will this be a large development in Western Australia, it will be the largest development this nation has entered into. It will be one of tremendous economic significance for all of us. Negotiations have been going on for some time to see whether the company can proceed with a feasibility study leading to the eventual development of the area. Before commencing the feasibility study the company is seeking to obtain certain assurances from both the Western Australian Government and the Commonwealth Government. At this stage progress has been made on some items but some are still outstanding. The volume of exports is one matter which cannot be determined until the pricing arrangements with Western Australia for domestic consumption and the volume of that gas are determined. The situation has reached the stage where I believe that that decision will not be long in coming forth. Other matters dealing with finance, taxation, customs and foreign investment all require a good deal of detailed study before the Government can commit itself. The matter requires an enormous amount of detailed work by the company in submitting its proposals before it is in a position to do the study. However, much work has been done in this area. I hope it will not be very long before answers can be given which will assure the company that it can proceed on a profitable and viable basis.

page 1798

QUESTION

WHYALLA: SHIPBUILDING

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware of the criticism levelled at the Minister for Industry and Commerce by the Mayor of Whyalla and councillors for the lack of response by that Minister to approaches concerning assistance to Whyalla as a result of the impending closure of the shipbuilding industry in that city? Is this lack of response in line with the lack of response by the Prime Minister to submissions made by the Premier of South Australia on the same subject and the Prime Minister’s long delay in answering questions on notice which were put by me, again on the same subject, and which have been on the notice paper for quite some time?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– The shipbuilding industry has been debated in the Parliament on a great number of occasions. I think honourable gentlemen know that the efforts of this Government were designed primarily in the first instance to achieve the survival of shipbuilding in Newcastle. For that purpose an industrial relations contract which would have been very fair and an innovation in Australia was drawn up. On the acceptance of that industrial relations contract it would have been possible for ships to have continued to be built at Newcastle. As we know, the terms of that contract were condemned by the Premier of New South Wales and by the President of the Australian Labor Party before there was even a chance for the matter to be properly, fairly and quietly put to the unions concerned in the Newcastle area. As a result of that, it was necessary to order ships overseas, just as the previous Administration ordered ships overseas. I also note that the Premier of New South Wales has ordered a floating dock in Japan. He has not given his own shipyard an opportunity to tender for that dock. When people start to speak about concern for the shipbuilding industry, I think the facts of the situation need to be kept very much in mind.

In relation to the broader question not only of Newcastle but also of Whyalla, I think the honourable gentleman will know that the Government has conformed with the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission, and that has not changed. It was a policy introduced by our predecessors and that policy was largely responsible for the present situation. It is my understanding that the Premier of South Australia, with significant financial reserves available to him, would have the capacity to take significant action in relation to Whyalla if he so wished.

page 1799

QUESTION

KING ISLAND AIR FREIGHT SERVICES

Mr GROOM:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that as from Tuesday of next week King Island will be without a regular air freight service because Brain and Brown Air Freight Pty Ltd, the main operator to the island, is unable to purchase replacement aircraft? Can the Minister assure the thousands of people on King Island, including hundreds of primary producers, who are absolutely dependent upon air freight services, that the Government will make sure that King Island has an air freight service by permitting Brain and Brown to purchase two DC4s from Qantas Airways?

Mr NIXON:
LP

-I am aware that BBA, as it is known, is threatening to cease its air service to King Island and that its aircraft are not far from being put out of order because they are unable to cope with the requirements and demands made upon them. Along with Air Express and IPEC, as well as Air Tasmania, BBA has made application to purchase aircraft to replace the present fleets. Unfortunately, after I had granted Air Express and IPEC an opportunity to import aircraft, a High Court injunction was taken out. The matter has been reserved by the High Court and we are awaiting the decision. This has clouded the whole position in respect of aircraft capacity for the airlines I have named. Because of the particular problem in relation to BBA I have arranged for discussions to be held with Qantas about the DC4s. Those discussions are presently ensuing and I am hopeful that by the end of the day I win have some information to help the honourable member with his problem. One of the difficulties that BBA ran into was the injunction taken out in the High Court and the company has been caught up on the snowballing effect of that injunction. I am unable to take any positive decision in respect of aircraft replacements until the High Court decision has been handed down.

page 1799

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

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

– I ask the Prime Minister for the third time a question about the Government’s reaction to the High Court judgment that the Government was in breach of the social services legislation in denying the unemployment benefit to school leavers until the long vacation was over. Since the Government has not appealed against the Court’s declaration and the time for appealing has elapsed, I ask whether the successful plaintiff has yet been paid her arrears of benefit and whether the benefit will now be paid to the thousands of other school leavers who during the vacation registered as unemployed and could not find employment.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– The honourable gentleman has asked me a question about a specific instance. I recognise that an answer is due to him and I will see that he gets one before the end of the day.

page 1799

QUESTION

GIPPSLAND INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION: ENGINEERING SCHOOL

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. He will be aware that Parliament has passed legislation providing funds for construction of the engineering school at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education and that a decision has been made to defer commencement of the works pending the outcome of the inquiry in Victoria into post-secondary education. I ask: Is the Minister aware of the adverse effects being experienced by the Institute, and in particular by the students, resulting from the delay in construction of the engineering school? Will the Minister advise the precise timetable leading up to the construction commencement date to ensure that the doubts which presently exist are removed?

Will he confirm that the sum of $2.5m scheduled in the relevant Act is in no way in jeopardy pending the decision of the Newman committee and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission? Finally, will the Minister confirm that additional moneys will be available to cover the increased construction costs caused by the delay?

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

-The question asked by the honourable gentleman is one which is obviously causing some concern. A number of detailed questions were asked. I do not have the information at hand, but I shall see that it is obtained as quickly as possible and will let the honourable member have a complete answer.

page 1800

QUESTION

ADULT MIGRANT EDUCATION SERVICE

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Has the Government rejected submissions from the New South Wales Government recently for a modest increase in the funding for the adult migrant education service so that it could cope with the growing demand from migrants wishing to learn English or overcome literacy problems? Is it true that the living allowance paid to migrants while they learn English by the Migrant Education Branch of the Department of Education has not been increased for 12 months and that the single rate allowance of $36 a week is now $1 1.10 less than the equivalent unemployment benefit payment? Does the Minister agree that this large disparity between the 2 allowances would discourage many migrants, particularly those who are unemployed, from undertaking English language training even if they are fortunate enough to gain admission to the course?

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

-I would have thought that after being the shadow spokesman on immigration and ethnic affairs for 17 months the honourable member would have understood that this matter comes within the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Education. I will refer the question to him and make sure that the honourable member receives a full and detailed answer.

page 1800

QUESTION

DEATH DUTIES

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-The Prime Minister will be aware that the abolition by Queensland of State death duties previously payable by residents of that State has had the consequential effect of creating windfall revenue to the Commonwealth Government insomuch as Commonwealth duties will apply to the total estate rather than to the residue after State duties would otherwise have been extracted. I ask the Prime Minister whether any action is contemplated by the Government to adjust procedures so as to shed the windfall death duties or, preferably, to indicate when Commonwealth death duties may be abolished?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Some suggestions have been put to me on this matter over quite some time. There is an element of truth in what the honourable gentleman says. At the same time I think there are a number of areas in which changes in duties or taxes by one government can have the impact of increasing the gains to another government. This could happen as a result of actions taken by the Commonwealth; it could happen as a result of actions taken by a State. I think it would be a very difficult job if, every time either a State or the Commonwealth adjusted duties or taxes, some consequential adjustment had to be made automatically. Also, I think that the argument advanced fails to understand that, in relation to the assessment of estate and death duties, it was the State duties that were assessed on the total value of the estate. Therefore, it was the State duties that always took the largest cut out of the totality of whatever estate was left. Commonwealth duties were always assessed on the remainder of the estate after the State duties had been taken out. If one wants to use a technical Treasury argument, I suppose it could be said that over a long period of years the Commonwealth has conceded the situation to the States and has given them the advantage of having the first bite at estate or death duties.

Having said that, it is obvious that in inflationary circumstances death duties impose many real and severe hardships on a large number of people- people conducting small businesses and a large number of individuals. Not only the Queensland Government but also a number of other governments, including the Commonwealth, have sought to ameliorate the impact over a considerable period, and a number of adjustments have been made. It is certainly one of the matters that in any Budget the Treasurer would want to take into account because of the hardship that is involved for small businesses of many different kinds and which is often involved for individuals. I am afraid that the honourable gentleman cannot read any particular result into the remarks I am making except that there is a widespread knowledge and concern about the impact of death and estate duties.

page 1801

QUESTION

MEDIBANK: HOSPITAL COVER

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Health aware that persons who subscribe to the standard Medibank cover- that is, the levy- are denied any benefit when they choose to occupy a bed other than a standard bed in a public hospital? Does this apply to pensioners as well as to others and is it a form of discrimination in that when a person is required to occupy a bed other than a standard bed he is denied cover even up to the standard rate although he may be prepared to pay the difference between standard and intermediate or standard and private ward cost? Has this matter been brought to his attention? If not, will he take action to remedy this situation as it discriminates against those persons who are taking advantage of the lower levy because of their income circumstances?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-It needs to be understood, and I am sure that the honourable member for Corio would understand, that the way in which hospitals are conducted in the States is the direct responsibility of the various State Health Commissions or State Departments of Health. There is quite a difference between the ways in which the States conduct their hospitals. I assume that the honourable member is referring to a situation that exists in Victoria and since he has brought the matter to my attention I shall ask officers of my Department to discuss it with officers of the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission to see whether there is any way of ensuring that standard Medibank patients receive the treatment to which they are entitled.

page 1801

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

-The Minister for Primary Industry will recall that the decline in the comparative prices of wool in recent decades has been due not only to the advent of synthetics but also to the adoption of heating practices in buildings, particularly in the United States of America, resulting in a reduction in the wearing of warm garments. Has the Minister noted the recent energy conservation initiatives of President Carter, particularly his appeal to United States citizens to reduce oil and gas consumption by turning down the thermostats in their homes in winter? Would this not suggest that there should be a very large market for woollen blankets and clothing opening up in the United States of America this coming winter. Will the Minister ask the Australian wool authorities to undertake a substantial wool promotion campaign in the United States of America keyed into President

Carter’s initiatives and pointing out the great capacity of wool to satisfy the requirements of the President ‘s objectives.

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

– The honourable gentleman has always been renowned for his innovative ideas and there is no doubt that this new face to the energy crises is one which has considerable appeal. However else he presents his arguments, it is certainly not a matter of woolly thinking. He has written to me and outlined a number of equally corny approaches, some of which might well pay off. He suggested that a campaign in the United States of America with the slogans ‘Wear wool; it’s warmer’, ‘Lie lighter; sleep tighter under an all-wool blanket’, ‘Turn down your oil heater; wool will help you to save your own body heat’, or ‘Shepherd your own warmth; wear wool’, might help reverse the trend to which he has referred. There is no doubt that the introduction of synthetics, heating and air conditioning, particularly in the United States, has had a profound effect on the level of wool consumption. The United States of America still very much dominates international trade in so many areas and were it possible for Australia to increase its exports of wool to that market it might well help reverse the general downturn in wool market demand that has been apparent over the last few years. However, I should assure the House that as a result of the introduction of the wool price reserve and the very effective efforts of the Australian Wool Corporation the market has been significantly higher throughout this season than it was last year. The latest figures from the Wool Corporation show that, under normal disposal circumstances, from 1976 to date in the 1976-77 wool season the market price has risen from approximately 220c per kilogram clean whole clip average to the current level of 305c per kilogram. Nonetheless, I shall commend the honourable gentleman’s approach to the Prime Minister. He might care to take up the matter with Mr Carter. Who knows yet, we might still have a woolly White House.

page 1801

QUESTION

AIRLINES USED BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Prime Minister: Why has he refused to travel by Australia’s own international airline on his latest international safari when scheduled flights by Qantas Airways Limited are available for his return trip? Is it because he has decided to leave a day early to enable him to stop overnight in Singapore or is it because travel by international airlines will be subject to less financial scrutiny by the Parliament?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the honourable gentleman will be well aware that, largely for reasons of economy, when I have to travel overseas I do so by commercial airlines. That has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ funds, compared with the practice adopted by my predecessor. One of the unfortunate circumstances is that Qantas Airways Limited does not cover travel to all destinations or ports to which it might be necessary to go. In these circumstances it is necessary to take the most convenient route so far as time is concerned. It should be understood also that appointments with people such as the President of the United States cannot necessarily be arranged to meet the convenience of a Qantas flight. In relation to the visit to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, I found it was necessary to use those airlines providing a service at a time which best meets the requirements of the trip as a whole.

I only regret that it is not possible to travel on the normal commercial Qantas nights in the way that I think any Australian would much prefer to do. I am afraid that that could not be allowed to be an overriding factor. To do that would have made it impossible to visit the number of places at the necessary times. Therefore, the normal and convenient course has been taken. If the honourable gentleman is suggesting that I should take a Qantas flight off its normal runs and operation and hire it for a month as my predecessor did at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, I should be interested to have that suggestion from him.

page 1802

QUESTION

BEER PRICES IN SERVICE MESSES

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

- Mr Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. Is the price of beer in soldiers’ canteens generally higher than in officers’ messes? If so, what plans has the Minister to eliminate this most regrettable discrimination? As an interim measure will the Minister consider asking officers’ messes to voluntarily subsidise soldiers’ canteens in order to equalise the price?

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

– I agree with the honourable member for St George that this is a most vexing matter. I assure him that it has attracted my attention in a variety of ways. I speak with all the warmth of experience as Flight Sergeant Killen. I had a great deal of difficulty attaining the rank of Flight Sergeant. I had even more difficulty staying there. It always struck me as being a heavy blow against the egalitarian movement that in one mess a certain charge was made for a glass of beer while in another mess a different charge was made. Such was the nature of my anxiety in this matter that I asked my colleague, the Minister for Construction, who has had a lifelong experience in the matter of canteens, to investigate it. Honourable gentlemen may understand how seriously the Minister for Construction treats the matter when I say that he has examined in detail a report prepared by a distinguished Australian, Sir Basil Osborne. Sir Basil was appointed by my predecessor, Mr Barnard, to inquire into the operation of canteens throughout Australia. My colleague is in the process of completing that examination. I can assure the honourable gentleman that the Minister for Construction is also approaching this matter seriously and with a great degree of earnestness because he speaks with all the authority of ex-Gunner McLeay.

page 1802

QUESTION

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS’ STRIKE-PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD ADVERTISEMENTS

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

– I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters: What was the cost of the advertisements which the Public Service Board inserted in most newspapers during its dispute with the air traffic controllers? How many newspapers carried the advertisements?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I do not have the information with me but I shall get it and supply it to the honourable member.

page 1802

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION

Mr CARIGE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

-Will the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House and rural Australia of the present situation in regard to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation? Can the Minister further inform the House whether the proposed legislation will meet with the full approval of producer organisations and processorexporter groups?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

-Last week I received from one of my friends and colleagues two asbestos or fireproof gloves which, it was suggested, might be needed for the passage of the proposed Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation legislation through the producer organisations. Obviously there is an extraordinarily difficult task ahead of governments in finding a solution to the very real problems of Australia’s cattlemen in restructuring the Australian Meat Board in circumstances where very real and conflicting views exist, both within the producer organisations and the exporter sector. The objective of government is to establish a professional body which will be better able to promote and expand selling opportunities for Australia’s meat exports. Our objective behind that is to ensure that greater returns flow to Australia’s cattlemen and Australian livestock producers generally. I expect to table shortly the notice intimating the introduction of the legislation. I hope that the legislation will be introduced and will reach the second reading stage some time tomorrow or, at the latest, by Friday of this week.

page 1803

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he was informed on 1 1 March last that an estimated 80 per cent of Aborigines at Maningrida in the Northern Territory had contracted syphilis. Can he inform the House whether this very disturbing report is accurate? What action has he or the Minister for Health taken to alleviate this appalling situation? Can he also assure the House that the national trachoma and eye health program sponsored by the Australian College of Ophthalmologists will not be obstructed by the Queensland Government in attempting to reduce the very high incidence of eye diseases amongst Aborigines?

Mr VINER:
LP

– I am not sure whether it was on the date mentioned by the honourable member that I became aware of the degree of venereal disease in the Northern Territory, in Arnhem Land in particular, but I and my colleague, the Minister for Health, are aware of the incidence of that disease amongst Aboriginals. If I might speak for my colleague here, his officers have had the matter under study in much the same way, but perhaps not to the same extent at this stage, as they have had under study the eye diseases to which the national trachoma campaign is being directed. That campaign, as my colleague has pointed out to this House on a number of occasions, has been extremely successful in the Northern Territory and South Australia. It has moved into Western Australia and is now moving into Queensland. In all the instances where it goes into other States it is with the co-operation and the knowledge of that State’s health authorities. I believe that that cooperation is forthcoming in Queensland. Diseases of this kind are ravaging the Aboriginal population of Australia. We, for our part in the Commonwealth, are doing our very best to bring them under notice and examination and to take such action as we can to bring about a lessening of their incidence.

page 1803

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I should like to add to an answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition concerning the unemployment benefit. I am now advised that this matter is being examined under the Director-General of Social Security. As the honourable gentleman will understand, it is the responsibility of the Director-General to make decisions in these matters. The High Court has reinforced this by stating that in the case of Miss Green she is not entitled to a declaration from the High Court that she was entitled to the unemployment benefit during the school holidays. The judgment of the High Court, as I understand it, was that she was not entitled to be denied the unemployment benefit merely on the ground that she was m fact a school leaver.

The Director-General is in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department at the moment to make sure that any subsequent determination he makes is fully in accord with the decision of the High Court and that any judgment he makes is therefore properly based. I am advised that a decision on that matter will be made before the end of this week. If it is necessary in the light of that decision and the High Court’s decision to review other cases, clearly that is a matter that the Director-General would have in hand.

page 1803

QUESTION

AIRLINES USED BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– In relation to a question I was asked about the airlines on which I will travel on my forthcoming trip overseas, I wish to indicate the very great cost of chartering aircraft. For 2 visits alone- obviously these are charges that would have been relevant two or three years ago- the charges came to more than $500,000. That kind of imposition on the people of Australia,. I believe, ought not to be made. Equivalent visits today obviously would cost much more because of inflation and increasing costs. Therefore I think the use of normal commercial aircraft is quite appropriate.

page 1803

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972 1 present the Australian Wool Corporation’s report of its operations in the year ended 30 June 1976. An interim report by the Corporation for 1975-76 was tabled on 5 October 1976.

page 1804

VETERANS’ RESIDENCES TRUST

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

Pursuant to section 10A of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Act 1953 I present the Veterans’ Residences Trust annual report for 1976.

page 1804

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LEGAL AID COMMITTEE

Mr ELLICOTT:
AttorneyGeneral · Wentworth · LP

Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Ordinance 1972 I present the annual reports of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Committee for the years ended June 1974 and June 1975, together with financial statements and reports of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 1804

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 assistance for the consumption of phosphatic fertilisers.

page 1804

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

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

Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present 3 agreements between the Commonwealth and the States of Tasmania and Western Australia made under the provisions of that Act.

page 1804

EDUCATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Education Research Act 1970 I present the sixth annual report of the Education Research and Development Committee, 1975-76, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education.

page 1804

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1 930 1 present the statement of receipts and expenditure relating to administration and development of the Australian Capital Territory for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1804

PATHOLOGY SERVICES

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

For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Pathology Services Working Party, March 1977.

page 1804

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Ministerial Statement

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

-by leave- It was some 5 years ago when I last made a comprehensive statement to the House on international trade. Looking back over the period I think it is fair to say that in many ways these have been the most traumatic years since the end of World War II- traumatic not least I might add in the area of international trade.

Many trade problems call for personal intervention at a ministerial level. In fact since returning to office I have visited almost all our major trading partners. It is appropriate to address the House today after having recently returned from an overseas visit to Europe and North America. During the past 2 months I have had wideranging discussions in Wellington, Geneva, Brussels, Washington and Ottawa. These discussions have enabled me to pursue matters of great significance to all Australians.

Trade amounts to 30 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product. Australia ranks sixteenth in the world trading community and hence taken as a whole we are not a major world force in trade. Our export importance is, however, far more significant than this in many commodities crucial to the world economy. We are the leading world exporter of wool, beef, alumina, iron ore and mineral sands. We are among the top three or four suppliers of many other rural and mining products.

Trade is an intensely dynamic area. I am sure honourable members will be aware of the growth of our exports to Japan. In one generation these have risen from negligible proportions to constitute one-third of our exports. Even over much shorter periods, major structural changes can and do occur. Since 1971 we have seen some Australian export industries make huge strides. Alumina and nickel are prominent mining industry examples. Though price is still a problem, beef exports have increased in volume terms by 60 per cent. Major new markets for beef have been developed in the Middle East and eastern Europe.

The past five years in general have seen a continuation of the longer term trends for both exports and imports. Imports rose from $4, 140m in 1 97 1 to $9, 1 40m in 1 976. Growth was particularly rapid for finished consumer goods. Exports during the same period rose from $4,6 10m to $ 10,750m. The mineral sector continued to expand its share of exports and constituted over 30 per cent of the total in 1976. Rural exports grew at a slower rate but last year still accounted for 46 per cent of our total exports. Manufacturers throughout this period remained at about 20 per cent of exports. With manufactures, however, the growth of processed goods like alumina tends to mask a fall in the export share of our more labour intensive manufactures.

One way or another trade impinges upon just about every aspect of our economic life. It is vital therefore that our trade policy be fully integrated with our overall economic policy. We must strive for a harmony between our trade policies and our domestic industry policies.

During the last few years we have witnessed the oil crisis, unprecedented exchange rate fluctuations and world stagflation. For the first time since the end of World War II we had a year when world trade- indeed world income- actually declined. This experience has been a salutary lesson to all of us. We had complacently expected economic growth to continue indefinitely. We had become accustomed to periodic downturns in growth but not a fall in absolute terms. Accompanying this recession was worldwide inflation. Few developed countries experienced such high levels of inflation as Australia.

The quadrupling of oil prices brought a new realisation of the importance of energy in the world economy. The surpluses earned by oil exporters have brought very great pressures on other countries’ balance of payments. Last month I led the Australian delegation at the International Monetary Fund deliberations in Washington. An especially important issue was how to augment international liquidity. The world needs to replace the demand which idle surpluses of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries have subtracted from the world economy. But it has to find a noninflationary way of doing this. At the same meeting the continued fragility of the world economy was stressed. Many countries continued to voice acute fear that the world could still be thrown into a 1930s situation by a competitive erection of trade barriers.

The recent London Economic Summit strongly rejected protectionism. It called for a new impetus to the Multilateral Trade Negotiations now in progress in Geneva. It called for expanded trade opportunities. The highly industrialised countries whose leaders participated in the London Summit maintain relatively open markets for imports of manufactured goods. This is certainly not the case for temperate agricultural products. For 25 years, agricultural trade has been largely by-passed in successive rounds of global tariff reductions. It is now the area where the greatest progress can be made in ensuring the world’s resources are used more efficiently.

I am pleased to report that Australia’s views on this are now finding a good measure of support. It is becoming widely agreed that progress m dealing with agricultural trade problems is essential to satisfy the objectives of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. In my recent discussions overseas, both the Director-General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the newly appointed United States Special Trade Representative supported this view.

The world economic downturn greatly exacerbated the problems for temperate rural products. The governments of many countries in various ways attempted to insulate their domestic producers from the downturn. Beef has been a special problem area. Our access to the United States and Canadian beef markets was restricted. Our access to the Japanese markets was eliminated and European Economic Community imports from Australia were reduced to negligible quantities. In 1973 total exports were 627 000 tonnes. During the 1974 exports had to be curtailed to 333 000 tonnes. We have made the strongest representations to each of these governments. But it is only recently that we are seeing a pay off with better access. In 1977 we are likely to export over 700 000 tonnes- an all time record.

Our difficulties on access to markets for the dairy products remain longer term ones. Nevertheless here we have an ironic situation. The Australian dairy industry is among the most efficient in the world. Yet we are having to cut it back. We are having to dismantle large sections of the industry because other countries insist on, in effect, subsidising their own inefficient industry. These subsidies restrict our access to their domestic markets. Just as seriously, the subsidised products are dumped on third markets further reducing the potential sales for Australia and other efficient producers.

Many domestic industries have found themselves in critical situations. Australian inflation, currency revaluations and the across-the-board tariff cut of 1973 reduced their competitiveness. On the rural side this meant a vicious cost-price squeeze. Import competing manufacturers found themselves undercut on the domestic market.

Our balance of payments weakened and we were forced to devalue in September 1974 and more recently in November 1976.

The economic situation caused a decline in Australian demand. The effects of this and the severe competition faced by Australian manufacturing industry can easily be demonstrated. Over 100 000 jobs in manufacturing have disappeared since 1973. On the basis of trends we could reasonably have expected the creation of some 50 000 new jobs in manufacturing since then. In the textile, clothing and footwear sector alone 40 000 jobs disappeared. Many of our markets overseas responded to more intense competition simply by cutting out foreign goods. We have not done so. At the same time we have not felt able to act as generously as we would have wanted towards many of our suppliers. Australia- and I think this is a bipartisan policyhas felt compelled to introduce restraints on certain imports. But let us be clear in the extent of these restraints. They are not nearly so great as some of our ‘free-trade-at-any-price brigade’ assume. In fact they cover just 4V4 per cent of our imports but are particularly prevalent in the textile, clothing and footwear areas. In all cases where restraint has been introduced it has been at a level which permits imports to continue at near record levels.

The Government recognises the need to give adequate protection to Australian industry. Imports of textiles and apparel into most developed countries are subject to restraints of one kind or another. It should be noted that Australia’s per capita imports of clothing and footwear compare more than favourably with those of many other developed countries. Imports of these products- largely from developing countries- have grown from $67m to $286m over the past 5 years. Hence I have very real difficulties with those who maintain that our actions have been unduly restrictive or harsh. Nor do I accept the criticism that our policy has provided little opportunity for developing countries to expand their trade.

Our recognition of the needs of the developing countries is shown by our system of tariff preferences for these countries. Australia, under a former Liberal-Country Party government, was the first country in the world to introduce a system of tariff preferences for developing countries. In the decade since then the system has been considerably expanded to the benefit of those countries. A comprehensive review was completed last year. Tariff preferences have enabled developing countries to compete more effectively with other suppliers. About 85 per cent of all items in the tariff are now duty free or have a reduced rate of duty for developing countries.

In a wider context the process of world change and the difficulties of market access has brought an intensification of international economic diplomacy. I have already made reference to the multilateral trade negotiations and the London Economic Summit. We have also seen greater activity on the part of developing countries in particular through the Conference of International Economic Cooperation (CIEC) and through the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Developing nations are calling for a new deal. They are calling for a new international economic order to improve their terms of trade, trading prospects and access to capital for development.

The problems of international commodity trade are of major concern to developing countries and to Australia. Support for orderly international commodity marketing arrangements is a key factor in our approach. We belong to all the international commodity agreements currently in operation. We are participating actively in the UNCTAD integrated program for commodities.

By employing mechanisms tailored to the particular circumstances of individual commodities, international commodity agreements can play a major part in ironing out the peaks and troughs inherent in commodity trade. Greater stability provides a firm planning base for both producers and consumers. At the same time, we do not wish to join attempts to manipulate prices artificially. Still less would Australia wish to be a party to any attempts at international blackmail.

Two commodities of particular importance to Australia- sugar and wheat- are currently the subject of international discussions. Last month I attended the United Nations Sugar Conference in Geneva which is attempting to negotiate a new International Sugar Agreement. As a major sugar exporter, Australia has much at stake. A successful outcome to the negotiations is of critical importance to Australia and the world sugar industry.

The United States is playing an active role in the sugar negotiations. This is consistent with the more forthcoming attitude of the present United States Administration to the question of international commodity arrangements. The United States is also playing an active role in ongoing discussions which Australia hopes will lead to the early negotiation of a new International Wheat Agreement. During my recent visit to North

America I was able to familiarise myself at first hand with the views of senior United States Administration officials and Canadian Ministers. We were able to discuss our specific approaches to the wheat and sugar negotiations and to international co-operation in the commodities area generally.

In recent years the mining industry has been at the forefront of our growth. Within the mining industry, energy has been the pace-setter. Over the last 5 years Australian coal exports have increased fivefold to $1.1 billion. Our selfsufficiency in oil has moved from half to twothirds though we are now approaching our peak in oil production. We are currently running a trade surplus in energy of about $500m and in the years ahead we can look forward to considerable expansion in coal and natural gas exports. Nowhere are the dynamics of world trade more marked than in energy.

Whilst in Brussels I had some most interesting discussions with Mr Brunner, the European Commissioner for Energy, and Mr Hijzen. the Director-General in charge of external relations. The question of Australia’s potential to supply energy- both coal and uranium- surfaced as a very real European concern. Discussions covered ways and means of expanding our relations. I reminded the Europeans that Australia is one of the world’s most efficient producers of foodstuffs. I pointed out that since 1973 when Britain joined the European Economic Community, access to what was once our largest market for foodstuffs has been progressively closed off. This agricultural protectionism together with import duties on processed minerals shuts out many of our best export prospects. I called attention to the current account deficit we are running with the EEC. This is now approaching $2 billion a year. Furthermore it is estimated to grow in the years to come unless we are given more equal opportunities to sell our goods in the EEC. In these discussions I was able to prepare the ground for further talks by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when he visits Europe next month.

President Carter’s recently announced energy policy highlighted the problems which the Americans can foresee in their own and indeed the world supply of energy. In the United States also, there was considerable interest in Australia as a future uranium supplier. I was able to explore American attitudes with, among others, Dr Schlesinger, Mr Carter’s energy adviser. In a wide range of discussions we covered American attitudes to nuclear safeguards, nuclear waste products and uranium enrichment. We agreed on an exchange of information on solar energy.

We are collaborating on coal research and development and will shortly sign a co-operation agreement. We discussed energy conservation. These talks will be vitally important in our own evolving energy policy.

Australia has 20 per cent of the world’s uncommitted low cost uranium. Dr Schlesinger confirmed that if Australia developed its resources, we will be able to assume a much more important role in the achievement of more stringent international nuclear safeguards. We will gain an influential voice in establishing a more effective non-proliferation regime. Both the Americans and Europeans stressed that uranium is essential to provide the energy necessary to further world growth. It is estimated that by 1985 20 per cent of America’s electricity will be nuclear generated. Furthermore, a fourfold increase in nuclear generation is expected in the 15 years between 1985 and 2000.

Japan is currently our largest market and the major consumer of our energy exports. Japan is likely to remain our largest energy market. Even more than the Americans and the Europeans, the Japanese have a vital interest in Australia’s future energy trade policy. More than any other market, Japan has provided the driving force of Australian trade expansion over recent years. Our 2 countries have achieved a very high degree of interdependence. Naturally the magnitude of our trade, and its potential, throws up problem areas. We are seeking greater access for those agricultural products where this is still extremely limited. Beef is clearly an issue of prominence; fruit and dairy products are others. It remains a top priority for the Government to impress on the Japanese that growing access for agricultural products is vital to the overall health of our relationship. Japan takes a third of our exports and supplies over a fifth of our imports. A close identity in our basic interests will continue. The future is certain to bring a considerable expansion in our rural exports as well as in energy and minerals.

New Zealand is Australia’s fourth largest export market. It is by far our biggest market for manufactured exports. Recently Senator Cotton and I were in Wellington to attend the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement talks with Mr Talboys and Mr Adams-Schneider. Both sides recognised mutual problems. New Zealand manufacturers have had almost unrestricted entry into Australia, whilst for many Australian firms, access into the New Zealand market has been severely limited. Australian industry is questioning the equity of this. New Zealand industry, after the first 10 years of

NAFTA, has achieved a much more competitive position. Naturally we appreciate the very considerable balance of payments problems still confronting New Zealand. We also recognise the achievements made in co-operative development and rationalisation of our 2 countries’ industries. What is required now is a better balance in opportunities to sell manufactures in each others’ markets. Further progress must depend on recognition by New Zealand of this need.

Australia and Papua New Guinea have a special economic relationship. This was recognised, following that country’s independence, in the negotiation of a trade and commercial relations agreement. The agreement came into force in February this year. It substantially ensures the maintenance of Papua New Guinea’s free market access into Australia. But it recognises that Papua New Guinea, as a developing nation, cannot be expected to extend reciprocal treatment to Australia.

Other countries in Asia and Oceania have become increasingly important. The People’s Republic of China is proving to be a most valuable trading partner. Even now there is a highlevel delegation from China in Australia for the fourth round of meetings of the joint trade committee. Australia welcomed from its beginning the 5 member Association of South East Asian Nations. Growth both ways has been very rapid over recent years. Last year Australian exports to these countries were over $700m and imports were over $3 70m. We have initiated moves to establish consultative machinery with ASEAN in the trade and economic area. Such machinery would supplement the bilateral trade and economic relationship which are already well established with each of the countries.

The Republic of Korea is rapidly growing in importance as a trading partner and is already a significant outlet for a number of Australian basic foodstuffs and industrial raw materials. I will shortly be visiting that country for the 1977 round of Ministerial trade talks. Major steps have recently been taken to strengthen our trade and economic relationship with India. A joint trade committee has met once and will meet again in New Delhi later this year. In the Middle East, increased incomes from oil have greatly enlarged the potential for Australian exports. We are seeing Australian expertise in the consultancy field winning business in the area. We have a joint ministerial commission with Iran and I led the Australian delegation to the first meeting in Tehran last August. Many opportunities for increased trade were identified and have been pursued.

Though Australian trade with the countries of Latin America is still small there has been steady growth. New initiatives were taken by the Government last year to promote trade development with the area and these initiatives will be further built on this year. Brazil in particular has developed rapidly and has great potential. The Government is investigating ways to encourage a closer trade and economic relationship.

Eastern Europe was identified as an area of vast potential for Australia as long ago as the late 1 960s. We have concluded trade agreements and provided for mixed government and commercial commissions with most of these countries. The accent is on these agreements providing an umbrella for the involvement of Australian businessmen. More recently some of these countries have indicated an interest in developing opportunities for wider commercial and industrial cooperation with Australian firms. I am pleased to see the interest this has evoked in significant sectors of the Australian business community.

It is natural in a statement of this nature to concentrate on aspects made topical, by recent events. However, the process of change overseas calls for constant reappraisal of our own trade development programs.

The Trade Commissioner Service continues to be the spearhead of our export development activity. There are now 57 trade posts overseas. The service has been adapted in line with requirements. In recent years representation has been strengthened in the Middle East, the centrally planned economies and Asia. Trade representation has been reduced in other areas. The Trade Commissioner Service is being constantly reviewed against the changing pattern of trade and trading prospects in individual markets.

We also have other policies which facilitate the exporting process. We have an export incentives scheme. The Government has decided not to proceed with previously announced cut-backs in the scheme. Meanwhile we are continuing to review it in terms of its scope and effectiveness. We have the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. This offers loans and insurance for longer term projects. New arrangements introduced last year provide Government support for funding of the Corporation’s export finance facility by the trading banks. This has provided momentum to the facility. EFIC is now supporting successful contracts totalling some $100m with other tenders in the pipeline. Assistance such as this provides a valuable stimulus to the manufacturing sector. It has direct employment benefits.

We have a trade promotion program which includes mounting displays, organising trade missions, the production of trade publications and arranging publicity for Australian goods and services overseas. Many of our trade displays serve to maintain the impetus in well-established markets. Whilst in New Zealand I visited such an Australian display at the Auckland Easter Show. Others complement efforts to open new markets. Recent examples of these are the well-received Australian exhibition in Moscow which I opened last year and the successful displays in Jeddah and Lagos. This financial year about 1000 Australian firms will have taken part in promotional activities organised by the Department of Overseas Trade.

Australia is a rich country. In terms of natural wealth per capita, we are one of the richest nations in the world. We have the lush coastal belt with its opportunities for intensive agriculture, tropical and temperate. Much of our vast interior offers land suitable for grazing and cropping. The waters off our cost are amply stocked with marine life. Our subsoil is rich in mineral wealth. We have vast energy resources- even excluding uranium. Moreover, we have a small but highly skilled population with a long industrial tradition. But our wealth does not guarantee our future. World history bears testimony to this. There are many nations which have stagnated despite vast natural resources. The role of government is to formulate policies which harness our endowment.

Trade is the catalyst to convert this natural and acquired domestic wealth into goods and services not easily available from our own resources. Responsible and outward-looking policies are required if we are to take full advantage of our potential. We have to mould our policies to a constantly changing world trading environment.

The Government’s role should be supportive. It should be confined as far as possible to maintaining or creating conditions which permit firms and individuals to seek out the best opportunities. We have to face the fact that complete global free trade is not the rule. The thrust of our trade policy is firstly to ensure a fair go for Australian goods and services abroad. Secondly, we must foster the freest possible flow of imports. Quite clearly this has to be tempered by our responsibilities to our own work force. Overrapid adjustment is an important factor in current high unemployment levels. But imports stimulate efficiency. We must always remember that exports in themselves are not used by Australians. We export in order to import- in order to improve and enrich our living standards.

Trade policy calls for a careful balance between competing demands. There are calls for preferred treatment for this country, that country, or a particular grouping of countries. At the same time there are demands for fewer imports to make way for the employment of men and machines here in Australia. Clearly, it is impossible to meet all these demands. Furthermore, Australia is a member of a number of international agreements. These establish the rules for international trade. They carry with them obligations and commitments. A basic principle is that there should be no discrimination between trading partners. Australia has a record of honouring its commitments. Moreover, it is to our overall advantage that everyone sticks to the rules, and we must play our part in doing this. I present the following paper.

International Trade- Ministerial Statement, 25 May 1977.

Motion ( by Mr McLeay ) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I will take the time of the House for only a few minutes. The Opposition welcomes the statement on trade made by the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Anthony). I should like to refer to a few things, not the least of which is the point made very early in the Minister’s statement that the Government considers that many of the problems require ministerial intervention. With that point the Opposition agrees completely. It is unfortunate that during our term in office the then Opposition, now the Government, tried to exploit the fact that a number of Ministers were called upon to carry out their duties in countries other than Australia. That was looked upon as being a matter of some political advantage to the then Opposition, who pointed out to the people of Australia that perhaps the taxpayers’ money was being misused for Ministers to go around the world. I do not intend to exploit that point in the same way as it was exploited at that time. In relation to the problems with which we are confronted as a trading nation, and the Minister has said that we are not amongst the top few trading nations but we are certainly right at the top in certain commodities, I think it is important that overseas countries’ representatives at the top level meet people from our own country at the top level.

I do not agree completely with the Minister that the Government’s role should be supportive.

Looking through the statement, it would seem that greater government intervention will be called for, greater government initiative. While the Minister said that the cutbacks in the export incentives scheme have now been stopped and the scheme is being reviewed, in looking at the Government’s role, as I said last year in my speech on the Budget, the Department of Trade made several false economies in respect of the export incentive scheme and perhaps, without knowing it explicitly, in the role and number of our trade commissions throughout the world. Nevertheless, I think that the statement which has just been made to the House is important. The Minister went to great lengths to point up the growing relationship between Australia and Japan. I believe that there is an increasing realisation by all concerned, both in this country and in Japan, that we cannot leave the relationship at a trade level. In order to consolidate the relationship which has been built up as a result of trade we need to build up relationships between the Australian and Japanese people at other levels of life. We would then have a better grasp, a better understanding, of their problems and they would meet face to face the problems that we have in Australia.

To that extent I warmly applaud the initiative of the Japanese Government over the past couple of years in inviting several delegations of Australian parliamentarians to Japan to look at their problems and to discuss at a very high level, even though we went only as back bench members of both sides of the Parliament, the enormous problems which that country may face in the future. The visit also gave us an opportunity to express views on behalf of those we represent in Australia. The Minister makes an extremely important point when he says that we must strive for harmony between our trade policies and our domestic industry policies. It seems that no country has realised the perfect recipe for achieving that harmony. I think every country comes in for its share of criticism. Every country, whether it be by tariff, standard, quota or in some other way, protects its local industries as far as it can.

Whilst, as the Minister pointed out, many of the countries that were repesented at the London economic summit are very free in the way in which they allow consumer goods to move in and out of their countries, in the area of rural industries the barriers go up. We may have faced greater problems in the last few years than we expected. Things happened quickly. I am pleased to see that the Minister has recognised that the problems the Labor Government was accused of creating in Australia were not just

Australian problems but were, indeed, worldwide problems that placed great stress on our export manufacturing industries. They caused great concern and imposed unbelievable poverty in many areas of the rural industries which we did not foresee and could not move quickly enough to eradicate. Nevertheless the experience of the past few years, not only for Australia but also for governments throughout the Western world and the centralised economies of eastern Europe, China and so forth, have been that we must get together. Many of the countries to which I refer are signatories to international agreements. We must try to seek some agreement between all these people to ensure that we avoid those problems in the future.

I wish to make some remarks about the comments of the people who have shifted from manufacturing industry. As was pointed out in the White Paper on manufacturing industry last night and as has been pointed out by the Minister in his statement on trade today, there has been a massive shift in the work force out of manufacturing industry. A certain number of these people have found their way into the mining industry and the tertiary industries. According to the White Paper and Government policy, this is a process or procedure which is likely to continue in this country. As I said last night, it will be extremely difficult in the future as it has been in the past, not only because of the pressure from the labour intensive industries to our north but also because of our educational standards, to ensure that the percentage of the work force that has gone into our labour intensive industries is available in the future. Properly analysed, this may be one of the ways in which we can build proper harmony, as the Minister says, between our imports and our exports and m our relationships with other countries.

Australia has played a part in trying to see that the developing countries not only have political independence but also are able to achieve economic independence. It has been to the disadvantage of us all that some of the developing countries, because of the lack of economic muscle, have fallen foul of other more dominating influences that have led to a great deal of strife and perhaps breakdown of relations, even with Australia. The more we can do to assist by giving tariff preferences to their goods coming into this country, the more quickly they will reach the economic independence which is an integral pan of a proper and lasting political independence.

I turn to the question of international commodities. In recent times Australia has been paying some attention to this matter. There have been a great number of discussions on the matter in Australia. There are certainly a number of problems surrounding it. But something must be done for the sake not only of the developing countries but also of the developed countries to overcome the problems of the peaks and troughs, as a Minister put it, inherent in commodity trade. It is to be hoped that the United Nations committee dealing with this question can reach a quick decision as to how this can properly work. It is of enormous importance to us all to see that we do not go through the problems of inflation that were caused by high prices for some commodities in the immediate years past. The export of our energy resources of course has been the subject of a great deal of discussion and debate in Australia, together with the impact that the emergence of the great mineral industry in Australia is having on our manufacturing industry. This presents a problem in regard to our balance of payments. People are no longer ignorant of it. It is not a question of closing our eyes or of turning the clock back and trying to stop the growth of an industry; it is a question of seeing that everybody in Australia is treated equally and fairly and that the emergence of one industry does not completely wipe out the existence of another. I do not think that in Australia it is the will of any person that we start de-industrialising as the developing countries start to industrialise. Not only has there to be harmony between other countries and Australia; there also has to be harmony between the various sectors of industry in Australia so that we have a proper and lasting development.

We welcome also the comments that have been made on the growing relationship between Australia, the ASEAN countries, other Asian countries, and the People’s Republic of China which we predicted when in government would become a valuable trading partner and which has done as predicted. We have specific arrangements with New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, and I think that all Australians would see those arrangements as being proper arrangements with 2 very close neighbours. They warrant consideration. They have brought problems in regard to manufactured goods, specifically with New Zealand, but they are not problems that cannot be worked out by proper discussion between our 2 countries. It is to be hoped that the discussions similar to those that are taking place under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement can also bring about some proper long term arrangement with the ASEAN countries. The countries to the north of us and in our region, the countries that will supply the world with another 500 million people between now and the end of this century, will be presented with enormous problems in putting their people to work. All Australians should be aware of this and whichever government is in power ought to take the initiative to see that we settle the matter properly and to our mutual benefit.

As I said earlier, I welcome the statement of the Minister and hope that the export incentive scheme is given rapid consideration. As honourable members on this side of the House said when the expenditure cut was made in the 1976 Budget, that cut was a false economy. It thrust greater problems on our industries than was needed at the time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1811

REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr FRY:
Fraser

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I bring up the following report:

Report on Proposals for Variations of the Plan of the Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs- Sixty-third Series.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr FRY:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr FRY:

-The report I have just tabled deals with the sixty-third series of proposals to vary the plan of the national capital. The House is familiar with the procedure whereby the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory examines from time to time proposals for variations referred to it by the Minister for the Capital Territory pursuant to section 1 (a) of the Committee’s resolution of appointment. The report recommends the implementation of thirty of thirty-one proposals contained in the sixtythird series, one item having been withdrawn by leave. The report also deals with 4 proposals reserved for further consideration by the Committee in its report on the sixty-second series and recommends the implementation of three of these items, one of them having been withdrawn in the meantime. This means that once the statutory procedure under section 12A of the Seat of Government Administration Act 1909 has been complied with the National Capital Development Commission will be able to let tenders for $13,823,000 worth of public works associated with the variations considered in this report.

Three of the items in the sixty-second series reserved by the Committee for further consideration involved the provision of access roads in areas previously reserved for medium density development. The intention of the variation is to permit the construction of detached housing in those areas. Objection was made by the Society for Social Responsibility in Science to these items. The Society has again lodged formal objections to 3 items in the current series on similar grounds. It was considered that more information should be provided by the National Capital Development Commission as to its medium density housing policy in order that the Committee might consider these items in their proper perspective. The opportunity was taken by the Committee to obtain a detailed statement by the National Capital Development Commission on its medium density housing policy which is appended to the Committee’s report.

The Committee gave careful consideration to the arguments of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science in support of its formal objection. The Society believes that Canberra’s increasing suburban sprawl is due in part to over-emphasis on standard detached housing in residential areas. It considers there should be a greater effort made to reduce this by the provision of medium density housing. In the Society’s view, urban sprawl has serious social implications and it also believes that a mix of residential styles and densities is desirable in urban planning. The Society thus objected to the reclaiming for detached housing of land previously proposed for medium density development.

The National Capital Development Commission was able to satisfy the Committee that it has actively and effectively promoted medium density as an alternative to standard housing. It also brought to the Committee’s attention certain matters associated with the housing situation in Canberra which has made it desirable to release more sites for standard residential development in established areas. These issues are dealt with in detail in the Report.

The other matter which I wish to mention concerns proposals contained in this series for the provision of cycle paths. These proposals have been approved by the Committee and when implemented will provide a network of cycle paths from Belconnen in the north of the Territory through to Manuka. The next stage will be from Commonwealth Avenue through to Phillip in the Woden Valley. The Committee will be examining the variation to enable the latter in its report on the sixty-fourth series. Cyclists will then be able to move between those areas on specially constructed and continuous cycle paths. There are now 9 kilometres of cycle paths in the Territory and when this variation is implemented there will be a total of 19 kilometres constructed. When the entire network is completed there will be 1 13 kilometres of cycle paths in the Territory. These cycle paths are a significant amenity and a special element in the development of the urban environment of the national capital.

I commend the report to the House.

page 1812

ESCALATION OF SERIOUS CRIME IN AUSTRALIA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The escalation of serious crime in Australia.

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

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

Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip

-In just over 3 minutes of every hour of every day of every week of every month of this year, a crime is being committed simultaneously in at least 2 States of Australia- Victoria and New South Wales. I am talking here about reported crime. Recent crime statistics indicate that Australia is in the grip of a crime epidemic of such horrific and gargantuan proportions that in comparison it could make Chicago and other recognised crime capitals of the world appear like convalescent homes for geriatric pickpockets. I feel it my urgent duty to bring these statistics to the notice of this Parliament and to the people of the nation. The time has arrived when we politicians can no longer afford to languish in a secular outlook of judicial leniency and powder puff penal reform; nor can we continue to take a kid gloved attitude towards this red zone situation. Before it is too late we must come to grips with the reality that crime in Australia a la 1977 is no longer a private war between its perpetrators and the police.

I turn to the one aspect of crime in Australia which has escalated beyond all probable predictionarmed robbery. It has become the scourge of this country. A somnolent Rip Van Winkle indifference, not just by members of the community until, of course, something actually happens to them or to a loved one, plus a sort of Alice in Wonderland, dormouse in the teapot attitude by some members of our judiciary and probably by as many of our State and federal parliamentarians, are at least in part responsible for this current reign of terror. Honourable members will not need me to remind them that whoever said that the law was an ass may well have been right. However, what is more to the point is the mushrooming heavyweight criminal element in our society that is making an ass out of the law. Whether it is terror at the snout of a gun or any other offensive weapon, this most despicable form of crime has become the fashionable trademark of the professional Australian criminal. Every would-be Ned Kelly is doing it and far too many innocent defenceless Australians are having it done to them as these thugs escalate their war on society.

Armed robbery in this country has increased at the alarming rate of more than 1000 per cent in the past 15 years. A decade ago when there was an armed robbery it was considered to be a singular sensation. Today in New South Wales we are averaging almost one a day and in Victoria more than one a day. Until last week Victoria had recorded its 170th armed robbery for this year alone. Included in this figure are the robberies of 20 banks and 28 pharmacies. New South Wales for the same period has recorded 120 armed robberies, including robberies of 17 banks and 8 Totalisator Agency Board offices. A detailed breakdown shows that in 1975 in Victoria there were 223 reported armed robberies while in 1976 there were 248. In 1975 in New South Wales there were 376 armed robberies and in 1976 there were 377. In Victoria in 1975 there were 36 street holdups as well as holdups of 3 1 pharmacies, 26 banks, 2 1 service stations, 10 hotels, 5 taxi cabs, 4 TAB offices and 18 private homes. In Victoria in the following year, 1976, there were 36 street holdups, and holdups of 25 chemists, 31 banks, 24 petrol stations, 16 hotels, 6 taxis, 13 TAB offices and 13 private homes. Included in the overall total were 13 payroll robberies, 7 railway station jobs and 41 holdups in shops. The total haul from armed robbery in Victoria last year was a staggering $2,281,617. The take in New South Wales exceeded $lm. Who says that crime does not pay? Our criminals are laughing all the way to, and very often from, the bank.

Melbourne is fast becoming the Chicago of the south and Sydney the Chicago of the east. The statistics from New South Wales tell their own tale of a rampage of terror by robbery under arms. In New South Wales in 1 975 there were 7 1 armed holdups in the streets and holdups at 28 pharmacies, 19 banks, 34 service stations, 18 hotels, 32 taxi cabs, 36 private homes and 49 retail stores. During the financial year ended June 1975 there were 21 holdups plus 4 attempted holdups in TAB offices. There were other armed holdups in different categories. In 1 976 there were 64 street holdups and holdups in 14 pharmacies, 25 banks, 45 petrol stations, 16 hotels, 29 taxis, 39 private homes, 62 retail stores, 11 railway stations, 12 TAB offices, as well as in Post Offices and restaurants. And on we go to the first half year to December 1976 in which there were 9 armed holdups on TAB agencies, whilst from July 1976 to May this year there were 16 such holdups.

The chilling twist to these latter type offences is that now the criminals are grabbing members of the public from inside the agencies and using them as hostages to force TAB officers to hand over funds. It is a shocking state of affairs when decent citizens are terrified to enter these agencies and even their own banks because they fear for their own safety. All over Australia last year, police estimate, $4m worth of property was stolen in armed robberies alone. The object is not always money. About two-thirds of armed robberies in Australia are cash orientated. With the remaining third, the object is drugs. Armed robberies committed for the latter purpose are increasing in frightening proportions. Deaths and physical injury from this type of crime are a matter of record. 1977 is without a doubt the year of the gun. The use of automatic weapons in armed robbery is so commonplace now that it hardly merits comment in the media. In Victoria in 1975, 155 guns used in armed robberies as a means of threatening the victim as opposed to knives being flouted by 75 armed robbers. The New South Wales figures for the same year were 250 guns and 117 knives. In Victoria in 1976, gun happy criminals totalled 181 while another 55 used knives. In New South Wales, the figures were 247 for guns and 1 15 for knives. Let there be no mistake. The highly professional hoodlums are well and truly on the scene. The days of the artful dodgers of our criminal society died with Dickens. The latter day ‘Machine Gun Kellys’ are very much alive and well and living very profitably in Australia. This country is fast flowering into a criminal’s paradise. The time has come for drastic retaliatory action. It is no longer good enough to leave the job to our police officers. Our judicial and penal systems are fast making the career criminal in this country a privileged class. We must not let misguided groups put at risk the classic Australian doctrine which protects the right of the individual against the power of the State.

The gaol population of this country is virtually the only group showing a diminishing growth rate. Where have all the convicted criminals gone? They have gone out on to the streets, of course, and into our homes, banks, totalisator agency boards and shops, committing more and more crimes. Even if a long term sentence is imposed, the fear and dread of imprisonment is often negated by the lucky felon finding himself suddenly transported to some pleasant rural training farm cum holiday camp where the smell of pine forests and lucerne fields makes Alcatraz sound more like the king’s castle in some child’s favourite fairy story. The granting of short nonparole periods for armed robbery is eroding the deterrent aspect of punishment. In nearly all cases the period subject to good behaviour is, in fact, the effective sentence. Believe me, gunmen find this a source of great comfort. The practice of granting concurrent sentences on armed robberies must be placed under close scrutiny. The moral of the story is that once a person has made one hold-up he should keep going and have all his crimes dealt with under wholesale discount arrangements.

I turn to the matter of bail. Treating hardened criminals kindly very often makes them contemptuous. It also very often, too often, leaves them at large to continue their lucrative criminal careers. It is time for legislation that will precisely set out the criteria for the granting of bail. Separate categories of crime could be included, such as armed hold-ups, where justices would be specifically bound to refuse bail except in the most exceptional circumstances with the onus to be on the defendant as in murder cases. Too frequently, criminals out on bail commit other robberies to pay for their defence or merely to continue their comfortable life styles. If a confirmed hardened criminal uses a gun or knife to steal property by terror, the courts should not readily recycle him into the criminal market. Society’s fingers have been burned too many times in this way. I propose the setting up of a national bail data bank in which pertinent information on a criminal’s court and prison record is fed into a computerised system for quick and easy reference by the State and Federal judiciary. Lack of relevant, informed data on a criminal is very often the reason for the granting of bail instead of the imposing of a period of custody in the interim. I believe also that there is a strong case at this time for legislation to be introduced for it to be mandatory that a justice should record his reasons not only for refusing bail but also for granting it, certifying that he has personally read the accused’s official up-to-date record. This data also should be fed into the national bail data bank.

Courts, for one reason or another, are not always informed of the totality of an accused person’s criminal record, particularly whether he has been granted bail in the past and his behaviour course whilst on bail. In other words, they are not always informed whether he has committed offences whilst on bail or whether he has absconded. The inclusion of vital information of this character in a national bail data bank would be foolproof and a matter of easy reference for those entrusted with the hearing of bail applications. Even though we are spending $ 12m to $ 1 5m a year in this country on security measures such as bank cameras, armoured cars, payroll guards and tellers’ cages - I am not including the cost of maintaining our police forces in this figure- commercial and private security is still careless enough for the professional criminal to make his hit and run successfully. Society nowadays makes it a relative pushover for the armed robber who is out to get rich quick at the expense of someone else. Television is a constant tutor to the apprentice armed robber. Public apathy, over-zealous psychiatrists and a criminal laxity m our gun laws are all contributing to produce and nourish a brand of desperate gunmen and robbers who will stop at nothing and at no one to achieve their perfidious goals. Many of them are the criminal jet setters, flitting from one State to the other, committing a robbery there and boarding a jet plane here to pull off another job in their home territory within the day. Western Australia is one State that is afflicted this way.

Mr Acting Speaker, I believe that the onus of containing this magnitudinous problem now lies, more than ever, not only with the law enforcement agencies but also with the judiciary and legislators working hand in hand. The hitherto politically fettered fist of legislative power must smash these criminal exploiters of our society, these uppity gangsters who make puppets of our judiciary and our parliaments and who are riding high on a national crime wave which may very soon engulf us so thoroughly that we will never again be able to argue effectively that great democratic philosophy that the greatest good for the greatest number must prevail in the end.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles)Without wishing to detract from the powerful speech that has just been made, I remind the

House once again that any person sitting in the Chair, other than the Speaker, should be addressed as ‘Mr Deputy Speaker’. The use of the term ‘Mr Acting Speaker’ is analogous to the situation which will arise next week when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will be overseas and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) will be the Acting Prime Minister. The situation occurs only when the Speaker is away and someone else is appointed in his place.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I would have thought that, as the matter was raised by a Government supporter, the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) himself would have been interested in taking part in the debate. The Government obviously is concerned, as it should be about this matter. But we must rely on a backbench member to raise the matter in the Parliament. He did so in a literary effort which would do credit to any journalist. The fact is that we should be doing something about crime in Australia.

Mr Hodgman:

– It was a very fine speech.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-It was a very fine speech. The alliteration was tremendous. It will read very well. But are we to leave it there?

Mr Hodgman:

– Are you running for the leadership now?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am not running for the apple State; that is for certain. Discussion of this matter is very serious. Is it not important that the Attorney-General should take part in the debate? Should we not at least be encouraging the Attorney-General to get all the State AttorneysGeneral together to work out some codification of crime and the appropriate penalties to deal with it? The establishment of a bail data bank is a worthy proposition. We could then consider the problems of criminals. We are well aware of what was said by the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) so eloquently and well; armed robbery is the growing crime of the seventies. It also happens to be the crime mainly of what are known as the cleanskins, 80 per cent of persons who at the time of committing a crime, have no criminal record. It has become the new fashion to get a gun and a quick dollar. The Sydney Morning Herald of 2 July points out that eight out of every ten armed robberies in New South Wales are committed by cleanskins- persons with no previous criminal record. So we cannot put a lot of emphasis on the bail data bank. What we have to do in our society is look at what is happening to it. It is a very broken fabric at the present time. People in Australia are not at all happy. They are not at all certain of whether they will have continuation of employment. Recent statistics Mowing from discussions in the United States Congress about what is happening to American society were published in a paper entitled ‘Estimating the Social Costs of a National Policy: Implications for Mental and Physical Health, and Criminal Aggression’. They show that unemployment is one of the major factors leading to criminal aggression. Why should we not be looking at that issue as a Government? The Opposition has made plenty of points as to what the Government is doing with economics. If the Government is going to create hardship, not only will it affect worthy citizens; it also will encourage citizens who have less integrity to plunge into crime. The conclusions in that paper were: … it is evident that significant relationships exist between economic policy and measures of national well-being. This study indicates that actions which influence national economic activity- especially the unemployment rate- have a substantial bearing on physical health, mental health and criminal aggression.

That is true. Again the report makes the point that for every one per cent increase in unemployment in the United States, numbers in the State penitentiaries increase by 3340. They are factors that we ought to be looking at as a national Parliament. There are very many of them indeed. It is important to talk about the role of the judiciary, the role of the legal profession, and the role of the police force. By all means let us talk about them. We know that many of these organisations are starved for funds, and that that is one of the problems of our society.

One of the issues we have to look at is the cost of crime in Australia. The 1 976 report of the Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that the cost of crime in Australia was about $700m annually. If we added to that figure the cost of administration and services it would amount to about $ 1,200m. We ought to be looking at not only crimes such as armed robbery but also white collar crime. If we set an example to underprivileged citizens and show that they can get away with crime if it is white collar crime, as we have allowed to happen in this country because of our failure to bring in reasonable security legislation- corporate crooks have been able to mulct citizens of millions of dollars while the Government sits idly by- is it any wonder that the armed aggressor will say: ‘Well, I am going to get in for my chop as well’. That is the way in which society is running. Of what value is it to society to let people defraud others of millions of dollars and to say that those people are not guilty of larceny in the strictest sense of crime. The Masterman report showed very clearly the defrauding of people of millions of dollars and the inability to get the evidence from respectable people such as chartered accountants, lawyers and others. They all said: ‘I am unable to assist you in this matter’.

It comes to this, does it not, in this society of ours; that on many occasions we could assist in the detection of crime through our own knowledge of a person’s assets and incomes. Let us not talk all the time about the thug. Let us look at the sophisticated criminal or the person who may even be a law enforcement agent. If it is within our knowledge that that person has a rapid accumulation of assets and income, why is it that we turn a blind eye to it simply because he has declared that accumulation in his income tax return? How could it possibly be fair and reasonable that a person on a public payroll, holding a law enforcement position, and known to have a given income, whose wealth suddenly mushrooms is not asked, from the point of view of crime detection: ‘How is it that you came by this wealth?’ If it is established that this wealth came from criminal activities, why is something not done about it? It is because in this present Australian national Parliament we have no arrangement whereby that matter could be investigated. If it is revealed in an income tax return it is confidential and that is considered to be good enough. If we are going to run things on that basis it is no good for the future of this country. Why are we not looking at the people who are getting the heroin into this country and the people masterminding a number of armed robberies? They are getting the rake-off as a result of being the heavies in society. We should not just look at this situation and consider doing something about a bail data bank.

We have to do a lot more than that. On many occasions we will have to look at our own law enforcement employees. We have to realise that if a criminal has no respect for law enforcement officers he has very little respect for his fellow citizens. If a person realises that crime is being perpetrated at all levels, why is he expected to conform with society’s rules? We should not emphasise too much the point of view of sheer psychiatry and believe that any citizen is going to be better by staying in gaol. It is one of the fallacies of life to think that if we incarcerate a person in a prison, he will improve. On the contrary, he becomes a more violent person. Look at the statistics on recidivism. People commit more crimes following repeated periods in gaol. People who started off their criminal careers at a very early age become more aggressive as they go through gaol after gaol. We have 70 prisons in this country and there are more than 9000 people in prison each day. Every citizen feels that because we have prisons and we incarcerate criminals in them those people will improve their behaviour while in those prisons. Anybody who practises law knows that those people are deteriorating. As I say again, they learn more crime while m those prisons. Why would they not learn more crime in those prisons? The State Penitentiary in the area I represent has a daily population of 1400 prisoners but has only one or two ‘education officers. How is there any chance for prisoners to be educated when they are incarcerated in establishments created in the last century.

Mr James:

– It is a university of crime.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That prison is well known as the college of knowledge. Is it any wonder that these people turn to further crime when they are incarcerated like animals. What about the people who have to deal with criminals? What particular training in psychology or educational facilities did they get? They have had no chance either. So it becomes a matter of aggression. A prisoner must either conform or be belted, as must happen if a prison system is to be maintained. The prison officers cannot be blamed. They have a duty to guarantee that these people do not escape. People in prisons are anxious to escape. Every prisoner is sentenced on the basis that he will be allowed out at some time. A prisoner comes out a violent person.

In regard to what has to be done in this country, I asked the Attorney-General whether we could fund experimental programs in States for young people when they first come under notice- that could be at the age of 13 years to 16 years-and thereby assist them. Perhaps that would mean removing them from their present home environment. The answer I got back was: ‘Well, you will be pleased to know, Mr shadow Attorney-General, that we do not always sentence people when they first come under notice. We do not always remove them to an institution. We give them a chance’. That is the very point I am making. Give them a chance, by all means, but have a look at what caused their predicament. Teachers can tell you who in the classroom will lapse into crime. The teacher knows whether there is any problem at home and probably knows that the child has no parents at home.

It is important for us, through our welfare programs, to develop crime prevention. Most armed robberies are committed by people under the age of 25 years, and certainly under the age of 35 years. Those people may be clean skins at that stage but their propensity to crime was developing way back. Certainly petty criminals are well known and are likely to advance into major crime. We should be able to reach such people at these formative periods. We should have programs whereby we can guarantee that they can get intensive rehabilitation, education and assistance. If need be, we should guarantee them better residential accommodation because the statistics show that the cost of crime is enormous. Apparently the cost of every person in prison is averaging about $100 a day. It would be cheaper for us to spend all this money looking at these people and their problems. Their problems are usually parental, or the lack of parents, or the lack of education opportunities. Their problems could well be psychiatric. These people could lack mental balance. In any classroom one can see the child who is making progress. One can see the young apprentice who is not making progress.

Let us have a look at these people if they come under notice for shoplifting, stealing cars or things of that nature. That is what we have to do. What happens in society at present? These young men, when they reach 18 years, are incarcerated with hardened criminals. Immediately they become the playthings of those men in more ways than one, particularly from the point of view of sexual deviates. These young men get no chance for self respect. They come out of prison feeling they have reached the bottom of the barrel. What do they owe society? They owe it nothing. They have been downgraded to the very bottom. So why would they not commit hardened crime from then on?

In Australia we have to look at the people who come under notice at an early age. Also we should not disregard those who come under notice again if they are in their twenties. We still have a chance with them, but it would require massive concentration of professional skills. Those skills have to be mainly in the educational, vocational, medical and psychological fields to assess the aptitudes or otherwise of these people. A lot of money has to be concentrated on these issues. This has not been done yet in Australia. We are conducting inquiry after inquiry into what is wrong with the prison system. It is very clear. What is wrong with the prison system is that it has adopted the fallacy that a person put behind bars will be a better person when released. That is not so. He becomes a caged animal with more fierce aggression in him than ever before.

The Opposition has always supported the study of crime but we say that the Government could give a lead now. It could establish a national Attorneys-General conference to inquire into how best to stop crime. At this stage the answer cannot be as simple as saying that we will increase penalties. We have to have a look at new techniques. Look at the latch-key children in Australia. There are many thousands of them. Have a look at other countries in the world which use school buildings from 3 until 6 p.m. for further educational opportunities for children where they may enjoy themselves or get more relaxation. Why do we always shut our eyes to these examples and not look at the problems and progress of other people? It is the responsibility of the national Government to see that the talents of our children are utilised. The matter raised by the honourable member for Phillip is very important but the solutions rest with the Attorney-General and the Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-The discussion is concluded.

page 1817

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

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

– I move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on the following days and at the times specified:

Thursday, 26 May- 10 a.m. Friday, 27 May- 10 a.m. Monday, 30 May- 2 p.m. Tuesday, 31 May-2 p.m. Wednesday, 1 June- 10 a.m. Thursday, 2 June- 1 0 a.m.

I do not wish to address the House on this motion at any length. The purpose of the motion is simple. We seek to achieve some savings in parliamentary debating time in order that at the maximum the business of the House can be concluded by the night of Thursday 2 June. I put honourable members on notice that if the business of the House is not concluded by that date it is possible that we will need to meet on Friday, 3 June. However, I believe at this stage that it will not be necessary. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition does not oppose the motion but I want to draw attention to one or two things which are consequential on the motion and the purposes behind it. One is that the Government has a considerable amount of legislation which it is about to introduce, some of which is listed on the tentative program to be introduced as late as Wednesday of next week. The timetable would prevent any reasonable opportunity for consideration of the legislation at Opposition Party meetings after the date of its introduction. I draw the attention of the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) to the stevedoring industry Bills which are listed for introduction next week. I do not think there would be any doubt that one could live with the temporary provisions Bills. But the stevedoring industry Bills are the alternative Bills to be introduced, I understand, depending upon thenavailability from the Parliamentary Draftsman. If they are given to the Opposition next Wednesday to be debated next Thursday I think that would be a substantial denial of the rights of the Opposition because -

Mr Sinclair:

– We will make sure that they are available to you before the Party meeting or the Caucus meeting on Tuesday morning, if they are to go through.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I want to expand on that point a little because the Bills involve major consequential amendments on which the Opposition spokesman would want to consult people. Some of the Bills, one of which is to be introduced by leave later today, and one involving major amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which is to come in on Friday, were not available to the Opposition until about an hour before its Party meeting was due this morning. I recognise that the Government is trying to get through an extensive program. In fact a greater number of Bills is to be introduced tomorrow than we have dealt with in the whole of the session since February. The point I make is that receiving a major piece of important legislation which involves amendments to a major Act an hour before a Party meeting is almost worse than useless. One has no time to collate it and to go through it and certainly no time to consult about its effects or to see whether it will carry out the purposes for which it is said to be drafted.

A considerable amount of legislation is proposed to be introduced. I am personally doubtful that we will not be sitting next Friday. But if the Government intends to proceed with the legislation, especially the stevedoring industry Bills, we would want a reasonable time for committee meetings and consultation on them because they are a completely new approach to the stevedoring industry, which is an important Australian industry. Our spokesmen would want time to consult with those involved in the industry on the consequences of that legislation. Presenting them on Tuesday morning or at 11 p.m. on Monday night would not meet the requirements of the Opposition in this regard.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I wish to express some concern at the fact that the Opposition had set down Wednesday 1 June as the date to settle the leadership strife which currently exists within that Party. I wonder whether the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) is being fair in suddenly bringing the meeting date back one day. We know that in the last few days the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has indicated that he will nominate for the Deputy Leadership of the Australian Labor Party. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) will do the same. I think the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) is also expected to be a last minute surprise nomination, as is the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) is another honourable member who is allegedly a contender for high office in the Opposition. In view of the fact that so many members of the Opposition had set aside next Wednesday morning as the settling day, the day to remove the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, and also the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Uren, I wonder whether it is fair for the Government to be so divisive as suddenly to place the Opposition in a position whereby it has to lurch on in the coming months with its present leadership, or alternatively to be faced with the problem of deciding the matter a day earlier.

Motion (by Mr Les Johnson) agreed to:

That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1818

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Bill now before the House nominally seeks to amend the law relating to trade practices in this country but in fact it does much more than that. It introduces laws which will have severe implications for our industrial relations. That is so even though the amendments now proposed are substantially different from those introduced by the Government at the end of last year and debated in this House early this year. Despite substantial changes to its proposed amendments in respect of actions by employees, the Government still seeks to control the activities of trade unions in certain respects through trade practices legislation. We believe that, by so doing, the Government is taking a completely wrong approach, especially as much of the activity that it would affect concerns issues that are not remotely related to issues with which trade practices legislation is basically concerned, that is, ensuring that there is free competition in the market place.

The Government bases this legislation in respect of unions on the fact that the Swanson Committee recommended that there be legislation to cover secondary boycotts by employees as they had the effect of restricting competition. But the mere fact that the Swanson Committee recommended it is not a substantial reason for introducing it. The Government itself has seen fit to ignore recommendations of that Committee in respect of other matters, such as mergers and price discrimination. Furthermore, the Swanson Committee did not even recommend that unions be brought under the Trade Practices Act. Certainly it concluded that unions engaging in secondary boycotts should be made subject to legal restraint, but it made no recommendation as to whether that restraint should be exercised under the Trade Practices Act or the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

In our view the fact that certain union action has the effect of restricting competition is no reason to include unions under trade practices legislation. Practically all union activity that has the effect of limiting competition has an industrial purpose. It is industrial action taken to achieve an industrial gain or to prevent an industrial loss. As such it is an industrial issue and not a trading or commercial issue. This legislation nominally seeks to control the activities of employees and unions in respect of secondary boycotts, which is a term that is not defined in the Bill. A text book definition of ‘secondary boycott’ demonstrates its industrial nature. In Grunfeld’s Modern Trade Union Law the expression is defined as follows:

A strategm of industrial conflict used in particular where the embattled union lacks sufficient strength in the plant of the employer in dispute to bring effective pressure to bear through its members employed there. The union may therefore try to sharpen the bargaining pressure by cutting off supplies to the employer or by sealing off outlets of distribution of the employer.

I emphasise the first part of that definition- ‘a strategm of industrial conflict’. Indeed, I challenge the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) to name one case of an alleged secondary boycott in which union action has not been taken for industrial reasons. In all the cases mentioned in the report of the Swanson Committee and in the debate on the earlier amendments there was not one example of union action not being taken to make an industrial gain or to prevent an industrial loss, such as a reduction in the numbers employed. Indeed, not many examples are available of those secondary boycotts. Certainly they occur from time to time and there are a couple of continuing examples. But they are, taken overall, a very minor aspect of union activity. It does not follow from that that this legislation will have only a minor effect on the trade union movement. On the contrary, if passed into law this legislation will have a dramatic effect on trade union activity covering a far wider scope than the narrow limits of secondary boycotts.

In this respect these amendments are dishonestly described in the Bill, as was the case with the earlier amendments. In those amendments the then proposed section 45D of the Trade Practices Act was said to relate to boycotts by employees, according to the marginal note to the then proposed section. In the Bill now before the House the marginal note to proposed section 45D reads ‘secondary boycotts’. In both cases the marginal notes are a wildly misleading description of the activity covered by the amending clauses. In its original form section 45D was incredibly wide in its application, covering all forms of industrial action by employees where they involved hindering or preventing the supply of goods or services to a corporation. All that mattered was whether such action was likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the corporation, as will be the case with any effective prolonged industrial action by employees that is taken for industrial reasons.

The criticisms that we made of that Bill were never answered in this House, but subsequently the Government has had detailed discussions with the unions and we now have a considerably altered proposed section 45D before us which, I might say, is in no way approved by the unions. Indeed, they are vehemently opposed to it. The first thing that one notes about it is that it is now vastly more complex. Indeed, it will become a lawyer’s dream as there is so much room for debate as to whether particular aspects of union activity would or would not be caught by this proposed section.

Certainly it goes far beyond secondary boycotts, but it will still affect a very wide range of union activity that could not be remotely described as secondary boycotts. For instance, sub-section ( 1 ) of proposed section 45D relates to a person rather than an employee, as previously proposed. If a person engages in conduct that hinders or prevents the supply of goods or services to a corporation or their acquisition from a corporation for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to the corporation or restricting competition, then he is liable. This would seem to us to cover such activity as student demonstrators picketing a firm for trade contacts with South Africa, to give one example. The picketing of a company for mining uranium is another example. Yet another example is seen when unemployed workers engage in a sit-in. It would also appear to cover union officials engaged in union activity that hindered the activities of a corporation. All of these people now come within this broader definition of ‘a person’ rather than ‘an employee’ which was in the original amendments.

Furthermore, the union itself may be included under sub-section (1). Since ‘a person’ is not defined in the Bill or the Act one must rely on the Acts Interpretation Act, which says that it may include a body corporate. Whether federally registered unions are bodies corporate for the purposes of this Act is not clear, but there is a good chance that that would be the case. In Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia the State registered unions are clearly bodies corporate and likely to be considered as such for the purposes of this Act. But even if a union can escape being roped in as ‘ a person ‘ the Bill still seeks to ensure that unions are ensnared by proposed sub-sections (5) and (6). Under proposed sub-section (5), when two or more members of a union engage in conduct in concert with another the union is deemed to engage in that conduct in conceit with them. Thus any activity by employees or union members which contravenes the Act will rope in the union as well. In fact, it will rope in the union instead of the employees unless the union establishes that it took all reasonable steps to prevent its members from engaging in that conduct. Goodness knows what ‘reasonable steps’ are supposed to be. The term ‘reasonable steps’ is not defined in any way in the Act. We are left to guess about that.

Thus the union is much more directly implicated than was the case with the previous proposed amendments. In those amendments the union was only caught indirectly through the aiding and abetting procedures of section 76 of the Act and even that depended on the union meeting the definition of ‘a person’. Now, however, unions are to be directly and specifically implicated in section 45D and if found liable will be faced with an horrific array of penalties involving $250,000 fines, injunctions and civil actions for damages. As we read this proposed section now it is much more direct in its concern to catch unions than were the previous amendments but, on the other hand, less concerned to penalise individuals.

It also now appears to us that the apparently large escape clause for union activity concerned with wages, conditions of employment, hours of work, working conditions or the termination of employment, as set out in proposed sub-section (3), is in fact far less comprehensive than may at first appear. In the first place a substantial amount of trade union activity would appear not to be exempted by proposed sub-section (3). The broadest head of exemption relates to the conditions of employment. But even that would appear to be limited to forms of action relating to different aspects of particular employment contracts.

Not covered by this sub-section as we see it are such items as demarcation disputes, because the High Court has ruled that such disputes are not concerned with the conditions on which people are employed but rather assume an antecedent contract of employment. Thus up to approximately 10 per cent of industrial disputes, which are demarcation disputes- a very substantial element- are not protected from the trade practices legislation and unions engaging in them being involved with the possibility of massive fines and penalties under this legislation. Action to secure peripheral employment benefits such as child care services at the work place would seem to us not to be included. Action taken to achieve a social or environmental end such as green bans would seem to us not to be exempted by the exemption clause. Industrial action taken to secure an industrial end but taken in a political context such as protest action against the Government’s industrial legislation or its industry or employment policy also would not be covered.

Doubtless, many honourable members opposite think it is a great idea to bash unions for these sorts of activities. But what is the relation of this to trade practices legislation? Why should a patently industrial dispute, such as a demarcation dispute, attract a penalty under a law supposedly aimed at achieving a competitive market place? What of the conflict with the industrial authority that is trying to settle the dispute? Will it be helped by the savage imposition of penalties under the Trade Practices Act? Clearly there is enormous potential for conflict here, as is the case with the authorisation procedures to which I will come later.

Furthermore, these exemptions only apply to industrial action taken to improve the conditions of the particular employee taking the action, or of his work mates employed by the same employer. Sympathy action in which employees of one employer take action to assist employees of another employer is not covered even if the action is ultimately directed at protecting the sympathy strikers’ own position. So, if in one company an employee was attempting a drastic change of production procedures, for instance, and employees of other employers took industrial action against that employer in order to ensure that those changes of procedures did not become established and so extend to their company, they would not be covered by the exemption clause.

Apart from appearing not to exempt a wide array of industrial activity we have an even more serious objection to these exclusionary provisions. It appears to us to be the case that proposed sub-section (3), which contains the exclusionary provisions, provides no protection at all to unions as such. Before I proceed any further, I should say that I learned a little while ago this afternoon that the Government may be introducing an amendment to this part of the legislation. But I will proceed in terms of the Bill as it has been put before the House. Proposed sub-section (3) is directed to ‘a person’ but from the context of the proposed sub-section it is clear that the person who can claim the exemption must be an employee. The proposed sub-section refers to ‘the employer of that person’ and ‘the employment of that person’. So, it is clearly directed only to employees, not their unions.

Then under proposed sub-section (5) it is provided that, where two or more union members engage in conduct in concert, the union is deemed to engage in conduct in concert with them. Thus the union is directly caught by any action of its members. But under proposed subsections (3) and (4) it is denied the cover which the employees have. Proposed sub-section (3) relates only to employees so there is no cover for the union there, particularly as proposed subsection (4) makes it clear that a person not covered by proposed sub-section (3) cannot escape the application of proposed sub-section ( 1 ) simply because the person with whom he is engaging in concert is covered by that proposed sub-section. Thus unions are left completely unprotected. Unless the Government introduces an amendment in the Committee stage it will pass something which will mean unions will be totally unprotected against the trade practices legislation in respect of any industrial activity which has the effect of causing damage to a corporation. Any action by union members that hinders or prevents a company’s activity and so results in a substantial loss or damage to that company will be a breach of the Act. Thus just about all strikes and industrial activity would be open to penalty.

Only those in occupations which do not involve supplying goods or services to or acquiring goods or services from a corporation would be exempt.

The industrial relations implications of such legislation are enormous. Yet this Government has blithely put them before this Parliament as though it were making only some minor change to inconsequential legislation. In fact the ramifications of this legislation would appear to be far more extensive than the recently proposed and now withdrawn amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If those conciliation and arbitration amendments are to be withdrawn for consideration by the proposed National Labour Consultative Council, what possible reason can there be for not doing at least that much with this legislative monstrosity now before the Parliament?

There are numerous other objections that we have to proposed section 45D. In the time available to me, I will refer to some of them. The use of the word ‘purpose’ in the clause is highly selective to the disadvantage of trade unions. In proposed sub-section ( 1 ), for a person to be in breach of the Act, it must be proved that he engaged in the conduct concerned for a particular purpose- that is, to cause loss or damage to a corporation or to restrict competition. Proposed sub-section (2) makes it clear that this purpose need not be the dominant purpose, or even a substantial purpose, because it excludes the application of proposed section 4F (b) to proposed section 45 ( 1 ). Section 4F (b) treats ‘purpose’ as meaning substantial purpose, but that provision is excluded from proposed section 45 ( 1 ) and it is sufficient under proposed section 45 (2) that the ‘damage’ purpose was just one, maybe a quite minor one, of the purpose underlying the action. Of course that is a very important provision because in most industrial action the principal purpose is to gain an industrial benefit or prevent an industrial Toss and damage to the company is an incidental purpose.

It is also revealing to compare this broad use of the word ‘purpose’ for the section to operate against employees with what is used where some benefit is being extended to them by way of the exemption provisions in proposed sub-section (3). In that sub-section action aimed at securing improved remuneration and working conditions etc., will be exempt only if it is the dominant purpose. So, when it is against employees the purpose is very broadly defined but when it is to their benefit it has a very restricted application. Unions will also have an avenue open to them to avoid breach of the Act which was not available before, and that is through the process of authorisation procedures under proposed section 88 (7). However the Trade Practices Commission can grant such an authorisation only if it is satisfied that the proposed conduct ‘would result or be likely to result in such a benefit to the public that it should be allowed to take place’. There is no specification of what factors the Commission will take into account in assessing whether there is an overall public benefit in the proposed practice. But presumably it will have to balance off the industrial relations benefit that may stem from allowing the practice with the effect on competition or on corporations. This would bring it into the field of competing with and possibly conflicting with the Arbitration Commission as to industrial relations aspects. In any case the Trade Practices Commission is not a body with expertise in industrial relations, and how it could be expected to assess confidently the industrial relations value of a particular practice is not explained in this legislation.

The legislation also seems to extend the liability of unions beyond the limits now set by the common law. This is an obscure and difficult area. But in recent years there has been increasing use of common law actions against unions and it is my advice that actions which are now defendable at common law are likely to be in breach of the law if this legislation is passed.

This Bill is bad legislation. It is dishonest in its description as relating simply to secondary boycotts. It is inappropriate to trade practices legislation as it goes far beyond action to restrain or to ensure effective competition. In any case it is an improper means of controlling trade union activity. It is frightfully ill considered. I ask the House to consider that the amendments that are now before the House in this Bill are to be amended again as we understand it. In any case they are the second set of amendments to be put before the House. Between those 2 sets of amendments other amendments have been floated to the trade unions. Quite clearly the Government is totally unsure of what it is trying to achieve or, if it knows, it is totally unable to achieve it. It is obvious that the Government has not thought the whole issue through. With each new set of amendments we are reduced to playing hunt-the-legal-Howard because in each amendment we eventually find an enormous hole. When we prove that to the Government it says: ‘We did not really mean that’, and it goes off and produces another amendment. The fact is that this legislation has enormous industrial relations ramifications. It will have massive industrial relations implications if it is passed. It should be torn up. If the Government will not withdraw the legislation entirely, then it should at least send it to the National Labour Consultative Council.

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

– Trade practices legislation is bound to be complex. The previous Australian Labor Party Government introduced legislation which was vague and uncertain yet the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who has just spoken at such length, asserted that this Government’s action has shown some kind of confusion. I suggest to the honourable member that he has failed to apply himself to the actions of the Government since December last year when the amendments were first introduced. This gave time, until the resumption of the House in February, for consideration of the proposals. Then, a long period was allowed for further consideration, a lengthy debate took place in this House and revised legislation was introduced.

Mr Young:

– What about the 12 more pages of Government amendments?

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

– The honourable member asks about the Government amendments. They were proposed. It was well known to the Opposition that considerable time would be allowed for debate in Committee. That is the usual method used to deal with the intricate wording of legislation of this kind. If the 2 honourable members on the front bench of the Opposition have not been here long enough to be experienced in that regard, then it is time that they found out how it is done. We have listened to the honourable member for Gellibrand applying himself entirely to one clause of the legislation in the time allotted to him. He has just concluded. I shall refer to some other clauses of the Bill. Perhaps I shall come back to some of the references made by the honourable member. The new amendments before us take into account the considerations put forward over this long time. They remove the penalty of imprisonment for consumer protection offences and lift the potential penal liability for substantially similar contraventions. Offsetting this provision, however, there are increases to the ambit of the consumer protection provisions. This is one of the important considerations over which the honourable member for Gellibrand just skimmed.

At present an offender would avoid prosecution for breaches of the consumer protection provisions if the contravention were due to a mistake, reliance on information supplied by another person, the act or default of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond his control, or if a person took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the contravention. Under the proposed amendments a person would avoid prosecution if the contravention were due to a reasonable mistake, reasonable reliance on information supplied by another person, the act or default of another person, an accident, or some other cause beyond his control and in which case he took reasonable precautions to exercise due diligence and avoid the contravention. All these are important actions which must be considered when the legislation is before the House. The new defence provision is essentially in line with that recommended by the Trade Practices Review Committee which is more clearly known as the Swanson Committee.

The Committee was of the view that the provision currently operates unduly harshly. It suggested that changes to the provisions would involve a major change to the law in relation to this matter. Let us go back and remember who put that provision in the law in the early stages. Of course, it was the previous Government. It has had to admit quite clearly that many of its provisions in the legislation during its term in office were ineffective, one-sided and quite unsatisfactory. The proposed increases in the ambit of the Act’s consumer protection provisions are important.

I shall refer to 10 specific matters. Firstly, the extension of the present provision prohibiting misleading or deceptive conduct- that is section 52 of the Act- to conduct which is likely to be misleading or deceptive. The second matter relates to the extension of the present provision covering false recommendations- this is section 53- to misrepresentation or false or misleading statements concerning the composition, history or previous use of goods, the price of goods or services and the existence, exclusion or effect of rights or remedies of consumers. The third matter to which I refer is the extension of the present provision prohibiting certain free offers- this is section 54- to offers of gifts or prizes where there is no intention of providing them. Again, we must recall that a lot of this was the product of a situation where there was an Act which did not really produce an effective coverage of these kinds of very important aspects of the legislation which ought to exist on the statute book.

The fourth matter relates to the extension of the bait advertising provision- section 56- and it provides that, subject to certain defences, where goods or services are advertised at a special price, they should be offered for supply for a reasonable period and in reasonable quantities. We all know how important that is in terms of the present economic climate. The fifth matter is the introduction of a new provision prohibiting conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature, characteristics, and suitability for the purpose or quality of services. Likewise, that is an important consideration. The sixth matter is the extension of the present provision prohibiting certain misleading statements about homeoperated businesses. This comes under section 59.

The seventh matter is an amendment to the provision covering product safety standardssection 62- to give the Minister power to prohibit for up to 18 months the supply of unsafe goods. The eighth matter relates to the introduction of a new provision prohibiting demands for payment in relation to unsolicited services. The ninth matter deals with the removal of provisions which now exempt supplies of goods by competitive tender from certain conditions and warranties. The tenth matter is the introduction of a new provision giving consumers the right to terminate contracts for breach of any of the implied conditions set up by the Act.

These amendments are in line with the recommendations of the Swanson Committee which considered that the Act’s consumer protection provisions needed some strengthening and extension. The Committee stage will enable debate on a wide range of other sections and clauses. Details of the latest consideration of the various sections and clauses have been circulated. The Government has made it possible, through this debate, for a full consideration of these matters to take place in Committee.

The various interests covered by this legislation have their views. We have just heard the spokesman for the union movement in this country. We have heard exclusively from the Opposition its views on a single aspect, important and all as it is. Despite many of the provisions to which I have referred and others to which other speakers will refer in Committee, nevertheless there is concern on the part of other sections of the community to the effect that they would like some further changes. Obviously, this cannot all be done at once. Bodies such as Australian Industries Development Association and the Commercial Law Association have expressed views. They take the point that unnecessary, onerous and costly restraints on business are not removed. Of course, if we are to have legal machinery in a circumstance of the kind which this Act provides, there cannot be an easy process on either side, whether it is business large or small, the trade union movement or whether it is single or multiple consumers. All of them have a part in terms of the need for their interests to be considered, and it is not an easy course. For that reason I said at the outset that all of this is bound to be complex. The same people to whom I have referred take the view that competition is still equated with public benefit, which they regard as being a little too theoretical. They say that size is still a major concern rather than abuse of size, and special reference is made here to mergers. Again, price discrimination under section 49, which has been retained by the legislation before us, and perhaps there will be some further reference to it, is still contrary to the recommendation of the Swanson Committee. The Government has taken that determination, and for sound reasons, but that does not mean that at some later stage there cannot be further amend-, ments to the legislation.

The people to whom I have referred go on to refer to amendments which mean that normal commercial requirement contracts are subject to section 45 and/or section 47. The Swanson Committee recommended removal of the unnecessary, inhibiting provisions which are applied under section 47, but those people feel that the drafting does not remove that difficulty. Of course, none of us wants a situation where the free flow of business is too greatly inhibited. On the other hand, there have to be restraints, guidelines, and all the rest of it, if we are to have an effective piece of legislation for protection purposes, but bearing in mind that that protection must be fairly even-handed and must take into account the respective interests of the total community to which I referred earlier.

It is claimed that no criteria are specified for determining public benefit. Of course, that is a very difficult thing to establish, and I think it is a question of the experience that is gained in terms of the application of the Act once it is on the statute book. We are certainly well aware of what the previous Labor Act did, and I am sure that those who might be concerned about the matters to which I have referred would have to think back only to what the previous Act could have done, and in many respects began to do, to business and commerce in this country. It is further said that no provision has been made for discussions between businessmen and the Commission to be effective and meaningful. I am sure that that is a matter which can be given further consideration. It is believed that the onus is still on the applicant business to prove public benefit rather than on the Commission to prove detriment. Those matters were covered in the earlier debate in the previous session. Finally, the tests for authorisation still seem to remain a little uncertain, but I know that the Minister will make some reference to a number of these matters at the Committee stage, when he is afforded an opportunity to speak to the House on these issues.

Further, I mentioned that the Opposition’s main spokesman directed his attention exclusively to proposed section 45D and said that it provided severe implications for trade unions. He did not say anything about the severe implications of the legislation that his Party earlier put on the statute book as far as other sections of the community are concerned. He said that the provisions of this new section dealt with actions not directly related to the precise import, as he put it, of the section. He relied heavily on the reference to actions by unions which interpretation of the new legislation would mean were disruptive and could be dealt with under the various subsections of section 45D on the basis of past record being directly related to union efforts for industrial gain. What a joke it is for the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations in this country to say that the record shows that industrial action has been related only to endeavours for industrial gain. Of course it has been, and the unions have not cared how they have gone about it. They have not cared who they have inconvenienced. They have not cared about losses to industry and commerce. They have not cared 2 hoots about loss to the individual, and proposed section 45D is designed specifically to ensure that there is responsibility on the part of the trade union movement in these matters.

Despite the crocodile tears of the honourable member for Gellibrand, who said that the legislation would have a drastic effect on the trade unions and that as a result of the actions of the Government there was not proper provision for adequate consultation with the unions about the legislation, he must admit on the facts that proposed section 45D provides a very evenhanded approach to this important and crucial aspect of trade practices in this country. The present Trade Practices Act exempts among other matters, any act done by employees or by an organisation of employees unless it is an act done in the course of carrying on of a business of the employer or those employees or of a business of that organisation. Time does not permit me to go through all the sections which flow on from section 5 1 in relation to coverage of that part of the Act. Suffice to say that what is provided in proposed section 45D ensures that in no way is the association or properly organised union of employees hindered. The proposed section does not hinder disputes solely between employees and their employer. Individuals are not liable to any penalties or damages unless they are acting in defiance of their union. Boycotts by companies and by unions are treated equally, except that individuals involved in union disputes have protection against penalties and, in most cases, against civil damage.

The amending Bill not only extends the Act in a limited area to union activity but also extends the provisions of the Act to the commercial activities of the Government itself. Those are part only of the sections to which the honourable member for Gellibrand very conveniently avoided referring. We have to recognise that the penalties provided are fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. They are penalties which ensure that if a restrictive action is brought about as a consequence of activities that are designed deliberately to bring about disruption and loss, then the Act provides for a proper approach in this direction. I commend the legislation and say that the Committee debate will ensure proper coverage of the various clauses. I hope that the Opposition will adopt a more responsible approach in the whole matter.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In following the honourable member for Cowper -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 84

NOES: 31

Majority…… 53

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 70

NOES: 30

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-In accordance with Standing Orders, I move:

I ask honourable members opposite to listen to the Opposition’s reasons for moving this motion. This is perhaps the most complex piece of legislation to come before the Parliament since many honourable members, including myself, have been here. Very few people in this Parliament understand exactly what is involved in the Bill. Unfortunately the Government has presented us with a situation where there has been no cut-off point in the representations it has received from trade unions, business houses or consumer groups. When we came into the Parliament this afternoon to conclude the debate on this Bill we were handed another 12 pages of amendments. Anyone in this Parliament knows that if we went to a lawyer’s office and asked for an opinion on one word the lawyer would want 2 or 3 weeks and $2,000 or $3,000 to tell us what it meant. The Trade Practices Commission itself has been reluctant to interpret certain words in the Act as it stands. It is beyond comprehension that the Government then should expect members of Parliament in the absence of legislative committees to understand the ramifications of the Bill which it proposes to put through before this Parliament rises on Thursday week.

I can understand as well as any honourable member in this House the reasons for wanting to conclude this session next week. We have had a fairly long session. However, they do not excuse the Parliament for rushing through measures such as amendments to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill which we have before us. To ask the Opposition when it is sitting in the House to comprehend 12 pages of further amendments based upon further representations made to the Government since the Bill was given to us is to push the legislation through without anybody understanding it. If this Bill is pushed through and honourable members opposite are asked next week by their constituents, friends or legal advisers to explain what it means, not one will be able to tell them. Honourable members opposite sit there and put up their hands but I do not know whether these amendments have even been given to the Government parties. So I ask honourable members opposite to act responsibly on this matter.

It is beyond the forms of the House to ask the Opposition to deal with this legislation in this way. This legislation will affect the lives of every consumer, trade unionist and business house and the Government is pushing through the legislation, the ramifications of which will be felt for years. So the Opposition feels that the only way to deal with it is to refer the whole lot to a select committee.

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

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the motion. As the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) said in his second reading speech, this is an extremely technical piece of legislation, yet the Government has sought to treat it in this fashion; and as the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) said, we are presented today with 12 pages of substantive amendments. These are not drafting amendments placing commas in different positions, improving grammar or removing split infinitives; they are substantive amendments. These are exactly the same tactics which the Government pursued in relation to its amendments to the Prices Justification Act. On that occasion the substantive amendment, the most important single amendment, was introduced on the day by the Minister in precisely the same fashion. It was an amendment which gutted the effectiveness of the exemption procedures provided in that Act. So it is here that we have amendments brought on immediately for debate today which affect important considerations like the meaning of ‘market’.

It has been quite apparent to me that we would do much better in this debate if we did not engage in personal slanging. This is a very difficult piece of legislation and Government supporters who insist otherwise are very foolish. One honourable member who preceded me in this debate said that he could read the legislation and to prove it proceeded to quote it verbatim. That is hardly the same thing as understanding it. This piece of legislation, particularly proposed section 45D, not unexpectedly agitates a great many of my colleagues on this side of the House. It has tremendous ramifications. It is being amended again here today in a substantive way. The Swanson report about which everybody pretends to know so much- I doubt that many members have read much about it- devotes over 60 pages to the consumer protection provisions to which, as the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) said, the Government has properly responded with worthwhile amendments. We on this side of the House look forward to improving the Act with those amendments. But in relation to restrictive trade practices and the provisions dealt with in Part IV of the Act, the Government has acted in altogether too hasty a fashion. The proposed section 45D is based upon 6 pages of recommendations. In the Swanson report, which contains 260 pages, 6 pages are devoted to secondary boycotts. That is a fact. I wonder how many honourable members opposite knew that. If they look at the piece of legislation we are considering they will see that it runs to nearly 80 pages. Of the 80 pages in this amending Bill, only about half a dozen relate to the consumer protection provisions. The rest relate to the procedures to be pursued by the Trade Practices Commission, the rights of parties before the Commission and the way in which business firms must conduct themselves in the marketplace.

Last December the Minister made a second reading speech of 10 minutes. He made no further contribution in that debate. He has now introduced a Bill which he conceded in his second reading speech earlier this month was an extremely technical piece of legislation. He devoted 15 minutes to that speech. In the debate on the second reading the Government has permitted 2 speakers from each side. It is not fair and it is not true to say that this is the same piece of legislation as that introduced last December. It differs very substantially. ‘Substantially’ is a word which honourable members should know a fair bit about if they want to know anything about this Act. In relation to mergers, it completely changes the provisions that were anticipated in the December legislation. It weakens the provision but it attacks it from a different position entirely. The provision in relation to the so-called secondary boycotts is pages longer and infinitely more complex. Yet the Government has still not thought its position through.

People quote the Swanson report. This piece of legislation contains elements which are based on recommendations in that report but many parts of it simply reflect Government policies and prejudices. That may be fair enough but let us look at the reasons for those prejudices. Let us not insist that in some way that they have been canvassed in the Swanson report, in the response by the Trade Practices Commission to that report or, in fact, in the submissions that have been made by interested parties, business houses, trade unions and consumer organisations, both to the Swanson Committee and to the Government subsequent to the publication of the Swanson Committee report. There has been no opportunity for a public debate and discussion and submissions by interested parties on this piece of legislation. All the submissions related either to the terms of reference of the Swanson Committee or to the December piece of legislation. It is becoming daily apparent, especially today, that this piece of legislation substantially differs from the December legislation.

There is a pattern in this legislation which can be simply exposed. At every turn the Government talks about simplifying the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated by authority of the Minister. The simplification is, in every case, to soften the tests, to ease the defences and to change the burdens. Whereas persons who engaged in anti-competitive behaviour in our community once had to go before the Trade Practices Commission and justify why they should be allowed to persist with this sort of behaviour, now the onus is on the other side. The Commission will have to turn around and determine not only whether the behaviour is anticompetitive but also whether there is a public benefit that outweighs that anti-competitive behaviour. Of course, that could be a public benefit which might exist in any case even if the behaviour was proscribed and prohibited. The Minister knows that. Ten minutes in December and 15 minutes this month have been the amount of explanation that the Government has been prepared to give us about these extremely complex pieces of legislation. I discount completely the contributions that have been made by Government supporters on the back benches. It just is not appropriate, as the Minister ought to know, that the larger issues and the scheme of the Act should be canvassed in the Committee stage. The Committee stage is not meant for that purpose. It is meant to isolate the bad parts, talk about them and to excise them if we possibly can. The Government is seeking to recast this piece of legislation from being legislation based on the American model -

Mr Lusher:

-I rise to take a point of order. I think it is appropriate to take a point of order. As I understand it, the honourable member for Grayndler is seconding a motion that this piece of legislation be referred to a select committee. It seems to me from listening to what he is saying that he is effectively making a speech on the second reading of the Bill. I think he ought to be asked to confine his remarks to seconding the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-I have already given consideration to the point raised by the honourable member for Hume. There is some relevance in what he said. On the other hand, the circumstances are different to those which usually do not allow reference to previous legislation. The honourable member for Grayndler is supporting the motion that this legislation be referred to a select committee. He is putting forward the arguments as to why this should happen. In that manner he is also referring to certain circumstances which he believe give justification to this motion. In that situation, I believe that it would be difficult for the Chair not so much to restrict the honourable member for Grayndler but not to allow him to refer to some of these matters. I ask the honourable member to be careful not to make a speech actually on the second reading but to stick to seconding the motion.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your assistance and the benefit of your experience in suggesting ways in which I ought to phrase what I am trying to put to the chamber. I am grateful to the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) for his appreciation of the points I was canvassing. I was not making a speech on the second reading or opposing it. I was merely drawing to the attention of the House the complexities of this legislation, the many questions which arise from it and why I believe the whole of Australia, both the business community and consumers- to the extent that one is able to distinguish them, in many ways their interests in this legislation overlap- will benefit if this legislation is referred to a select committee. The honourable member for Port Adelaide who is not known for being a too immodest fellow was perfectly right when he said that not many honourable members can claim that we fairly understand this legislation. It is not a specific piece of legislation which votes money for a project or a scheme. It sets out to establish rules of conduct in the marketplace which affect the way in which business firms conduct themselves in Australia. It is legislation for which every one of us will be called to account by our constituents. In the second reading debate, such as it was, that we were permitted on the December legislative proposals that the Minister introduced, it fell to the Labor side of this House to champion the interests of small business and successfully to defend the repeal of section 49 in relation to price discrimination. How extraordinary! How odd that we should seem to make the issue of small business a partisan issue! How absurd for Government supporters to be placed in that position because they had to follow blindly the advice from their Ministers who had introduced a piece of legislation which had been thought through inadequately. That is a perfect example of the Bill having been improved in the last couple of months since it was before us.

I believe that if the Bill were put before a select committee for a couple of months we would see a much improved piece of legisation. Everyone on this side of the House concedes that the Trade Practices Act 1974 is capable of improvement and we welcome some of the amendments that the Government proposes, particularly, as I said, those in relation to consumer protection. But it is quite apparent that the larger, much more important provisions of the legislation, have not been thought about enough by the Government or by Government supporters. For our part on this side we say quite frankly that we have not had the time to consider them.

The legislation sets out general rules of application. These apply in various ways to different circumstances. I believe that the Government, when it confronted the trade unions about its first proposed section 45D, was able to give the trade unions 4 instances of the sort of conduct it thought was reprehensible and ought to be proscribed by that proposed section. The best the Government could come up with was 4 instances. In this case, in relation to so many of these provisions, every one of us will find members of the community who will come out and say that they have been disadvantaged, just as the small business organisations did in relation to the proposed repeal of section 49. There was a furore amongst them. Of course, in the end, the Government had to back away.

The reason that this debate has been conducted at a comparatively low level is that the legislation has not been sufficiently understood. Members of this House would do very well to consider the advantages of referring this Bill to a select committee. I anticipate that there is every prospect that notwithstanding the majority of Government supporters in the Senate, it is very likely that in the Senate just such a proposal will carry the day. How silly we will look in this House of Representatives, the House which has the most direct contact with people in the community, if we pass up the opportunity to have a better look at this legislation, if we pass up the opportunity to let our constituents come to us and inform our colleagues in a select committee about its likely application. I think that there is every prospect that notwithstanding there being more Government supporters in the Senate, in that House the majority of members will vote to refer this matter to a select committee.

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

– I wish to respond to the matters raised by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam), but for a reason that will be understood by the manager of Opposition business in this House I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour this day.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr Chipp:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respect what has just been done. It is all very well for the manager of Opposition business to know what arrangements have been made, but with great respect I suggest that other honourable members ought to be informed of those arrangements before we grant leave.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– In the circumstances perhaps I should inform the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) that the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) desires to present a report to the House before a certain time. For that reason there has to be an interruption in the debate. The Minister will present the report to the House and we will then return to the debate. That is the situation as I understand it. Leave has been granted for the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to continue his remarks at a later hour this day. The question is, ‘That the debate be now adjourned and the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1829

RANGER URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY: SECOND REPORT

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

I am sure that the honourable member for Hotham will now understand the problem. For the information of honourable members I present the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report.

Motion ( by Mr Howard) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 1829

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Debate resumed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The motion now before the House is that the legislation be referred to a select committee.

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

– I welcome the opportunity afforded to me by the motion moved by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) to say something about the issues involved in this legislation for the first time since it or its predecessor was introduced into this House. The honourable member for Port Adelaide and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) both put to the House that the complexity of this legislation and, more particularly, a number of amendments which the Government has circulated today, forms a basis for this House rejecting a proposition that this legislation should pass through this House this week and that rather the legislation should be referred to a select committee of the House. I think in response to that proposition that it ought to be recorded that it was in April of last year that the Government announced the terms of reference for a committee of inquiry into the trade practices legislation. That Committee sat for a period of 4 months and received about 250 submissions. It presented its report to me on 30 August and that report was made public. As the Minister responsible in the area, I received a large number of submissions on the Swanson report. As a result of those submissions and the Government’s consideration of the Swanson recommendations, on 8 December we introduced a Bill into this House with the express purpose of exposing that Bill to scrutiny and comment. It was not the intention or the belief of the Government at that time that the Bill as introduced in December would be the final form of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. Indeed, by adopting that procedure, the Government afforded to those people, both in this Parliament and in the community, who were interested in this subject, an opportunity beyond the opportunity normally afforded by governments to allow scrutiny and comment of important legislation. What I am saying is that in respect of the Government’s treatment of this measure, there has been more opportunity afforded for public scrutiny and scrutiny by members of this House than is normally the case with legislation of any government. If the honourable member for Port Adelaide casts his mind back to some of the complex legislation that was presented by the Whitlam Governmentlegislation to establish the National Corporations and Exchange Commission and legislation to establish a national compensation scheme- he will remember that the opportunity for scrutiny in debate that was allowed on that occasion in respect of the subject matter involved was minuscule compared with the opportunity that has been provided on this occasion. We had a fully fledged debate at the second reading stage on the principles of trade practices legislation at the beginning of this session. It is true that changes have been made and that in legislation of this nature, as the honourable member for Grayndler and the honourable member for Port Adelaide know, it is necessary that changes, many of them of a technical nature, be made right up until the Bill goes into its final stage. With such legislation it is always possible to improve drafting to clarify meaning. One should not adopt an attitude that once legislation is introduced into the House one must completely close one’s mind to the possibility of accepting further amendments. Indeed as late as yesterday and this morning I had discussions with representatives of the trade union movement regarding some of the provisions of the Bill. Does the honourable member for Port Adelaide assert that having introduced this legislation I should not have been prepared to consult the representatives of the trade union movement?

Mr Young:

– You should have notified the Opposition. We are the ones in the Parliament, not the unions or the business houses or anybody else. We are the ones who are here. We are the ones who ought to be notified.

Mr HOWARD:

-Ought to be notified? I am not talking about notification; I am talking about a readiness to engage in the commodity that the Opposition is always extolling, and that is consultation. We should not get to the situation where a government, having introduced legislation into the House, says that that is the final word on the matter and it will not consult anybody outside in the community who may be affected by that legislation. I do not believe that that is the correct way of approaching legislation. I believe that in respect of this measure the Government has allowed an opportunity for consideration of proposed amendments and amendments beyond what is normally provided. Indeed, when the facility of enabling a debate on the December Bill was made available the comment was made in a number of areas that that sort of facility ought to be employed more often. That facility was not employed when the Whitlam Government was in power. It is a facility that has been employed in respect of the Aboriginal land rights legislation. It is a facility that is being employed in respect of the trade practices legislation. I do not believe that it is appropriate in the circumstances for this legislation to be delayed by the device recommended by the Opposition.

Mr Young:

– What are the rights of the Opposition? Tell us that.

Mr HOWARD:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide asked about the rights of the Opposition. In response I say that this Government has demonstrated a greater respect for the rights of the Opposition than was demonstrated by the previous Government. I remember clearly that in the space of 2½ hours the national compensation legislation of the previous Government was rammed through this House without the benefit of a proper debate, without the benefit of the type of scrutiny and examination that has been afforded to the Opposition in respect of this measure. We have given to the Opposition in respect of this and many other measures a far greater degree of respect than was accorded by some- I do not say all- of the Ministers in the previous Government.

The Government rejects this motion. I do not believe any purpose is served by referring this matter to a select committee. It has been the subject of scrutiny, consideration and comment by a wide section of the community. There has been an opportunity since December for members of the Opposition to focus on the principles that have been involved. I believe that the proposal of the honourable member for Port Adelaide is designed to delay the House’s consideration of this legislation. It is a proposal that I believe should be rejected.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-If the Opposition is not in a position to examine these clauses it will be put in a position where it has to oppose them, good or bad.

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 70

NOES: 29

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put-

That the motion (Mr Young’s) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 30

NOES: 73

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Sitting suspended from 6. 15 to 8 p.m.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5- by leave- taken together.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– Proposed new section 2a provides that the Act binds the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth insofar as the Crown carries on business. This seems to create a problem in that the business carried on by the Crown could well then be deemed to be affected by the monopolisation provisions of Part IV. Therefore, would it not be more accurate to exclude not only Part X but also Part IV. As honourable members will appreciate, if the legislation is to bind the Crown in respect of its business, would not operations such as Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans-Australia Airlines be affected? Perhaps the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) could indicate the position, if need be at a later stage.

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

– The honourable member raises a fair point. I will take the opportunity at a later stage to respond to that question.

Progress reported.

page 1832

INCOME TAX (RATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

– I move:

This Bill will amend the provisions of the income tax law that fix the amount by which personal income tax for 1977-78 is to be indexed. The amendments concern the effect on the consumer price index, and hence on personal tax indexation, of last year’s health insurance changes and the devaluation.

Under existing law, the personal income tax scale for 1977-78 is to be adjusted by a tax indexation factor derived from the increase in the average level of the consumer price index for the year ended 31 March 1977 over its average level in the preceding year. In announcing the

Government’s decision on 20 May last year to index the personal income tax system I said, inter alia, that:

In indexing the system each financial year we shall allow for price movements, other than those due to increases in the level of indirect taxes . . .

Accordingly, the law permits the making of a regulation fixing a smaller adjustment factor, so as to exclude the effect of indirect taxes on the consumer price index. The new funding arrangements for health insurance are similar in thenintent to increases in indirect taxes on other goods and services. Although the Medibank levy seeks to have people pay more, and the Budget less, of the cost of their health care, the law as presently drafted does not permit this to be taken into account in determining the indexation factor. The Government now proposes that this situation be corrected. Therefore, this Bill will require that in fixing the personal tax indexation factor, account is also to be taken on the effects on the consumer price index of the October 1976 changes in health insurance arrangements and the devaluation.

In its submission to the recent national wage case the Government argued that devaluation effects on the consumer price index should be treated, for wage indexation purposes, in the same way as indirect tax increases in order to preserve the gains to the economy flowing from the changed exchange rate. The Commission accepted that principle and I quote from the judgment:

We should in these circumstances minimise as far as possible any action which would reduce the benefits conferred by devaluation on the competitiveness of the Australian economy . . .

Consistent with that, this Bill will further provide that account be taken of the effects of devaluation on the consumer price index in determining the personal tax indexation factor. By amending the law in this way the Government is, in part, safeguarding the stimulus to activity, and the consequent employment effects, that devaluation is beginning to bring about.

I turn now to the basis of the calculation of the tax indexation factor in 1977-78. The average level of the unadjusted consumer price index was 1 3.6 per cent more in the year ended March 1 977 than in the year ended March 1976, which are the relevant years for determining the indexation factor. Increases in excise duties in the 1975-76 Budget account for 0.7 of the 13.6 per cent, as they increased the index for only part of the first year, but the whole of the second year. After removing that effect, and the effects of the health care changes and devaluation, the personal tax indexation factor for 1977-78 is to be 10.9 per cent. The cost to the Commonwealth Budget next financial year of reducing personal income tax by this factor is estimated to be some $825m.

Personal tax indexation, applying for the second year on 1 July next, represents the most significant reform of the personal income tax system in our time, and certainly the most costly in terms of revenue forgone. Taxpayers in general will gain substantial benefits from the application of tax indexation next financial yean As from 1 July all taxpayers will have extra cash in their pay packets. For purposes of illustration I mention the gains from tax indexation next year for a taxpayer without dependants earning $10,000 per annum-around the level of average weekly earningsand for a taxpayer with a dependent spouse on the same annual income level. The benefit to a taxpayer with an annual income of $10,000 with a dependent spouse will amount to some $188 in 1977-78, or $3.61 per week. The benefit to a taxpayer with the same annual income without dependants will amount to some $133 in 1977-78, or $2.55 per week. I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard, tables setting out tax payable in 1977-78 at selected levels of income and that demonstrate the very considerable savings to taxpayers resulting from indexation. Technical features of the measure are explained in a memorandum that is being circulated to honourable members.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The tables read as follows-

Mr LYNCH:

– I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1834

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

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

-The question raised by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) is very relevant to the decision of the Government to bind from now on the commercial operations of the Commonwealth Government as far as the Trade Practices Act is concerned. I point out to the honourable gentleman that this decision of the Government does not disturb the position of agencies of the Commonwealth Government which enjoy a monopoly as a result of the statutory provisions governing the operation of those agencies. Perhaps the most relevant example of that would be the operations of Telecom Australia and of Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia under the 2-airline agreement.

It has never been the intention of the Government to disguise the effect of this change. I put it higher than a change; it is an important reform in trade practices legislation. The Government does not assert that it has eliminated all monopoly situations as far as government or semigovernment activities are concerned but this is a significant step in the right direction. It accords with the concept that if a government is heard to assert to the private enterprise community that competition legislation is good for the community generally, then it should be heard to accept that that same competition legislation should, as far as is reasonably practicable, bind the operations of the Government itself. Undoubtedly, the new provisions at some stage will be the subject of some examination by the courts and by the Trade Practices Commission. The policy intention of the Government- I believe that policy intention has been effectively translated into the legislation- is very clear and that is to treat in an even-handed fashion the commercial operations and the behaviour of sections of the community in a commercial environment.

If competition legislation is regarded- as this Government regards it- as being something quite important and fundamental, then the community ought to be prepared to accept the same restraints as a government where it is operating in a commercial environment. Those are the restraints which the Government requires private enterprise to accept. In saying that I do not assert that all government monopolies, and what so many people would regard as preferred positions for the commercial operations of government, have been eliminated. Obviously, the effect of the amendment is not to override the statutory monopoly enjoyed under any particular piece of legislation. I put it no higher than that. I think the change is an important change. It is a change of principle. It is a change which I hope will draw support from both sides of the Committee. I think it is the essence of even-handed treatment that if we assert that something is good for one section of the community because it serves the public interest, we ought to be prepared to accept that those same rules and restraints apply, as far as is practical, to our own behaviour.

I have 3 amendments to clause 5 which reads:

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting in sub-section ( 1 ), before the definition of ‘authorization’, the following definitions: -

by omitting from sub-section (1) the definitions of ‘services’ and ‘share’ and substituting the following definitions:- ‘ “services” includes any rights (including rights and interests in relation to real or personal property), benefits, privileges or facilities that are to be provided, granted or conferred in trade or commerce and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the rights, benefits, privileges or facilities that are to be provided, granted or conferred under-

a contract for or in relation to-

the performance of work (including work of a professional nature), whether with or without the supply of goods;

the provision of, or of the use or enjoyment of facilities for, amusement, entertainment, recreation or instruction; or

the conferring of rights, benefits or privileges for which remuneration is payable in the form of a royalty, tribute, levy or similar exaction;

by omitting sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) and substituting the following sub-sections: - ‘(2) In this Act-

a reference to engaging in conduct shall be read as a reference to doing or refusing to do any act, including the making of or giving effect to a contract or arrangement, the arriving at or giving effect to an understanding, the requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant, the engaging in a practice, the supplying or acquiring of goods or services or the acquiring of any real or personal property;

a reference to conduct, when that expression is used as a noun otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be read as a reference to the doing of or the refusing to do any act, including the making of or giving effect to a contract or arrangement, the arriving at or giving effect to an understanding, the requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant, the engaging in a practice, the supplying or acquiring of goods or services or the acquiring of any real or personal property; ‘(3) Where a provision of this Act is expressed to render a provision of a contract, or to render a covenant, unenforceable if the provision of the contract or the covenant has a particular effect, that provision of this Act applies in relation to the provision or the contract or the covenant whenever the provision of the contract or the covenant has that effect notwithstanding that the provision of the contract or the covenant did not have that effect at an earlier time or will not or may not have that effect at a later time.

I ask for leave to move those amendments together.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr HOWARD:

– I move:

  1. 1 ) Omit from the proposed definition of ‘services’ all the words occurring after the word ‘includes’ and before paragraph (a) of the proposed definition, substitute ‘any rights (including rights in relation to, and interests in, real or personal property), benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred in trade or commerce, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the rights, benefits, privileges or faculties that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred under-‘.
  2. In paragraph (o), omit proposed paragraphs (a) and ( b ), substitute the following paragraphs: . ‘(a) a reference to engaging in conduct shall be read as a reference to doing or refusing to do any act, including the making of, or the giving effect to a provision of, a contract or arrangement, the arriving at, or the giving effect to a provision of, an understanding or the requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a convenant;

    1. a reference to conduct, when that expression is used as a noun otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be read as a reference to the doing of or the refusing to do any act, including the making of, or the giving effect to a provision of, a contract or arrangement, the arriving at, or the giving effect to a provision of, an understanding or the requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant; ‘.
  3. Omit proposed sub-section (3), substitute the following sub-section: ‘( 3 ) Where a provision of this Act is expressed to render a provision of a contract, or to render a covenant, unenforceable if the provision of the contract or the covenant has or is likely to have a particular effect, that provision of this Act applies in relation to the provision of the contract or the covenant at any time when the provision of the contract or the covenant has or is likely to have that effect notwithstanding that-

    1. at an earlier time the provision of the contract or the covenant did not have that effect or was not regarded as likely to have that effect; or
    2. b) the provision of the contract or the covenant will not or may not have that effect at a later time. ‘.

The first amendment relates to the definition of services. It is a technical amendment only. It is more usual to speak of interests in property than of interests in relation to property and the addition of the words ‘or’ and ‘are’ in lines 12 and 15 on page 4 of the Bill avoids any suggestion that services are only, for the purpose of the Act, those services to be provided at a future date.

Amendment No. (2) deals with the meaning of ‘conduct’ and ‘engaging in conduct’. The effect of those amendments is to amend subsection 4(2) of the Act. Firstly, this applies to the provisions of the agreements rather than to the entirety of the agreement. Such a result is consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the Act. Secondly, it removes reference to engaging in a practice, the supplying or acquiring of goods or services or the acquiring of real or personal property. The balance which remains in the subsection after those amendments is all that is necessary to ensure that conduct includes matters in relation to agreements although such matters may not be properly thought of as conduct. The other material which will be deleted by the amendment might raise accidental inferences leading to an undesirable narrow interpretation -for example, that conduct did not include price discrimination.

The amendments are technical and drafting amendments. They do not represent, in common with most of the amendments which the Government is now moving, any changes, significant or otherwise, in policy. They are designed to remove drafting and technical ambiguities and, one hopes, to make the Act a little less ambiguous and a little clearer. The third of this series of amendments to clause 5 deals with sub-section (3). This amendment is also technical. It ensures that the provisions of section 45 and section 45B apply to such provisions whenever but only while the provisions have or are likely to have a prohibitive effect.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6.

After section 4 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: - ‘4a. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a body corporate shall, subject to sub-section (3), be deemed to be a subsidiary of another body corporate if- ‘4p.”A provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, shall be taken to be an exclusionary provision for the purposes of this Act if the provision has the purpose of restricting or limiting-

  1. the supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons; or
  2. the supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons in particular circumstances or on particular conditions, by all of any of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding or of the proposed parties to the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding or, if a party or proposed party is a body corporate, by a body corporate that is related to the body corporate. ‘4j. In this Actfa) a reference to a joint venture is a reference to an activity in trade or commerce-

    1. carried on jointly by 2 or more persons, whether or not in partnership; or
    2. carried on by a body corporate formed by two or more persons for the purpose of enabling those persons to carry on that activity jointly by means of their joint control, or ownership of shares in the capital, of that body corporate; and
Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– I ask for leave to move amendments Nos 4 and 5 together.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr HOWARD:

– I move:

  1. Omit proposed section 4D, substitute the following section: ‘4d. ( 1 ) A provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, shall be taken to be an exclusionary provision for the purposes of this Act if-

    1. the contract or arrangement was made, or the understanding was arrived at, or the proposed contract or arrangement is to be made, or the proposed understanding is to be arrived at, between persons any two or more of whom are competitive with each other; and
    2. the provision has the purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting-
    1. the supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons; or
    2. the supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons in particular circumstances or on particular conditions, by all or any of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding or of the proposed parties to the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding or, if a party or proposed party is a body corporate, by a body corporate that is related to the body corporate. ‘(2) A person shall be deemed to be competitive with another person for the purposes of this section if the firstmentioned person or a body corporate that is related to that person is, or is likely to be, in competition, in relation to the supply or acquisition of goods or services, with the other person or with a body corporate that is related to the other person.’.
  2. In proposed section 4J (a) (ii), before ‘ownership’, insert ‘by means of their’.

The first of these amendments could not be strictly categorised as purely technical. It deals with the definition of exclusionary provisions. Clause 6 deals with the definition of exclusionary provisions and the effect of the amendment is to provide that only provisions of agreements between competitors or likely competitors shall be capable of being taken to be exclusionary provisions. An exclusionary provision is a provision which has the purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting business dealings with the target persons. The word ‘preventing* has been added to include the situation where the provision bars all dealings with those persons. As will be apparent to honourable members, the effect of this amendment which the Government presents is to limit the operation of the exclusionary provisions to what could commonly be called a horizontal situation and to take out of the application of the prohibition of exclusionary provisions any element of dealing with vertical conduct. The reason for this is that the Government, after further consideration and some submissions, formed the view that if the amendment were not made it might be possible for a problem to arise in relation to exclusive dealing conduct which, it is the clear intention and purpose of the Government, and we have made no secret of it, should be dealt with entirely under section 47.

If the more expansive definition of exclusionary provisions had been left in the Act, one of the unintended by-products of leaving it in that situation would have been that certain exclusive dealing conduct which the Government intended should be governed by section 47 would in fact have been caught by the operation of section 45. The effect of redrawing the definition and restricting it to horizontal situations has been to make it far less likely that that type of consequence would ensue. It is no secret that the Government’s policy intention has been that exclusive dealing should be dealt with exclusively by section 47, and from as early as the deliberations of the Swanson Committee the view has been that section 45 conduct should be separated as far as possible from section 47 conduct. The approach embodied in the amendment I have just moved is totally consistent with that view. While the substance and the words of the amendment are new, they are not new in concept and are entirely consistent with the concept that first appeared in the Swanson Committee recommendations, then in the December Bill, and again in the Bill I introduced 2½ weeks ago. This amendment is to ensure that the policy objective is quite clear.

The second amendment, amendment No. 5, which deals with clause 6 of the Bill, I regard as a technical amendment. It is to remove a potential, although very unlikely, possibility of a misinterpretation that the partners in a joint venture company might have to hold their shares in joint ownership. I believe it is fair to categorise that as a technical amendment.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The proposed new definition of exclusionary provisions is a substantial amendment. While it relates to a concept that was exposed by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) in the legislation he brought in in December, it substantially alters that provision. The Minister referred to the fact that the Swanson Committee had also dealt with this concept. I think I am right in saying that the Committee did not strike upon this description of a so-called exclusionary provision. The Committee went out of its way to draw attention to the different types of boycotts which can exist in the market place. No doubt it felt obliged to do that because its terms of reference had been so narrowly and specifically drawn that it was obliged to direct its attentions to something called a secondary boycott, particularly because it was a form of activity indisputably engaged in by certain registered organisations of employees. The Swanson Committee then identified collective boycotts and distinguished primary boycotts as a form of behaviour which ought to be outlawed by the trade practices legislation. Although the Minister has referred to such boycotts in his speeches and in the explanatory memoranda, the Government has not erected such a definition in the legislation. To do that, certain behaviour is described in the proposed new section 45, sub-section (1), and particular attention is drawn to what is called an exclusionary provision. In the amendment the Minister has just proposed, we are now looking at a substantially altered definition of an exclusionary provision.

Let me say at the outset the Opposition welcomes the Government’s move away from the concept of restraint of trade. I think it might fairly have been anticipated that Australian courts, with their innate conservatism, would have interpreted that in the way that they did in the Quadramain case. To some extent, a good part of what the Government seeks to do in proposed section 45 is laudable. Nonetheless, in the new definition which the Minister introduced this evening we do have a substantial alteration. The exclusionary provision is now to apply only to an agreement between persons, any two or more of whom are competitive with each other. Sub-section (2) of the proposed new section goes on to say who are deemed to be competitive with each other. The Minister was frank enough to admit that it has been the Government’s clear intention and purpose to translate all vertical restrictive behaviour from section 45 into section 47. I hope that later on he will be drawn to comment on the consequence which flows from that classification.

It is one about which both the Swanson Committee and the Government have been rather coy. Instead of the spirit of the legislation introduced by the Labor Government in 1974 being observed, and that was a spirit of generally proscribing behaviour which is deemed to be anti-competitive and not in the interests of the Australian economy, we are now getting back to putting some sort of behaviour into a preferred position whereby companies, simply by giving notice, can give themselves the advantage of an automatic authorisation, formerly a statutory interim clearance. That is a terribly important distinction because there is a great deal of behaviour in the Australian economy which is objectionable. In fact, the kind of behaviour to which the Trade Practices Commission has directed most of its attention is the very behaviour of exclusive dealing relating to vertical arrangements. That behaviour has exercised the attentions of the Commission, it has exercised the attentions of industry, and it has certainly led to those matters which have engaged the attention of newspapers and have been the subject of the public hearing of the Commission to date.

I do not believe that the Government, and certainly not the Swanson Committee, has made a good case for this argument. The Minister made his frankest confession about the intentions of the Government only this evening. In the past the argument has been that we are simply tidying everything up, that there is behaviour which has been caught by section 45 of the existing Act which ought to be placed in section 47, relating to exclusive dealings. In doing that, certain kinds of behaviour are put into a preferred position where the Commission is placed in the position that it has to look at that behaviour on a case by case basis. Without wanting to anticipate all the arguments we will be canvassing this evening, and here I have to trust to the Minister’s bona fides in allowing us to raise these questions at what might be a more appropriate time, consequences flow from the changed notification procedures in relation to exclusive dealing, and that goes particularly to the matters that the Trade Practices Commission now has to consider. Whereas formerly it had to consider only the question of whether the behaviour was anticompetitive and could come to a relatively rapid conclusion, it now has to go on to consider questions of public benefit, which are much more difficult and take much more time.

As I say, this is a very substantive amendment. I realise that to the extent that it affects collective boycotts, it is to the advantage of certain organisations such as trade unions which could never be taken to be in competition with other organisations in the market place. But it seems to me that the extra words that have now been added to proposed new section 4D and which give us this new concept of exclusionary provision are objectionable. The reason is that we on this side of the chamber object to the fact that the Government is expanding the categories of business behaviour which can now escape the general purpose of the Trade Practices Act. For that reason, the Opposition will be opposing amendment No. 4.

Mr SHIPTON (Higgins) (8.3 welcome the changes to this section of the Trade Practices Act which take away the potential conflict between section 45 and section 47. There was a real risk in the previous section 45 that an exclusionary dealing of the sort referred to in section 47 was covered. I would like to raise a matter in respect of the amendment now before the chamber concerning exclusionary provisions. I move no amendment in relation to this matter, but after reading the amendment, I wonder whether it is completely clear that a competitive situation is covered in which there is competition at different levels between the 2 parties concerned. For example, a company may have a wholesale function and a retail function. It may be possible for an agreement to exist between a retailer and a wholesaler who also operates a retail outlet. This operation may be in conflict with the exclusionary provisions as contained within this proposed new section because the company is competing at the retail level.

I would prefer to interpret the clause- I feel that this is the intent of the legislation- on the basis that the words ‘competitive with each other’ contained in paragraph (a) of proposed section 4D ( 1 ) mean competitive with each other in relation to the supply of those goods or services or the acquisition of goods or services. I hope that is what we are referring to and that that is what the act of competition is about. I would welcome any comment that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs had to make on that.

In a general way, I feel that these amendments do clear the air and do give some more certainty to business. The original clause contained a restraint of trade provision. That has been removed. I hope that in the interpretation and in the practise before the Trade Practices Commission more certainty has been introduced. I suppose, as in all things, that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we will have to wait for the experiencepractice.

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

– In response to the remarks of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam), I state quickly that I will have something further to say about the Government’s approach to exclusive dealing when we reach the provisions of the Bill that deal with it. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) asked about a situation in which companies may be in competition at a particular level and in which also one of those companies, as well as being in competition at that level, may operate at another level. I think he used the example of a retailer engaged only in retailing who was in competition with a company that is both a retailer and a wholesaler. I think the appropriate response to the honourable gentleman is that the design of the amendment is intended to cover a situation in which people are in competition at the same level. If a company operated at both the wholesale and retail levels and it is in competition at one of those levels with another company, and an agreement is entered into between them in respect of the particular level of conduct involved, that is obviously the type of horizontal arrangement which ought to be the subject of the operation of the exclusionary provision. Whilst I acknowledge that this could have the effect of possibly striking at an arrangement between a company that is both a wholesaler and a retailer, the only way in which an exclusionary provision prohibition can be applied on a horizontal basis is to have a provision to this effect.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition is in some difficulties in relation to this clause to which a substantive amendment has been moved. Unfortunately, the Opposition is not able to have clarified or to take advice on it because of the late hour at which the amendments were provided. We are not in a position in which we feel we can blandly take the word of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on this. We were told at an earlier stage during other debates that certain things would be applied. The Minister has now found that that is not the case. He has now introduced other amendments to bring about what he thought the previous draft of the legislation would have done. The Opposition’s position is that not being in a position where we can accept the amendments, we will be forced to oppose them. Our opposition is purely on the basis that we have not had time to get advice on them or to have those amendments properly explained even by the usual practice of officers of the Minister’s Department or someone else coming to see us. The amendments have been brought in cold. They are substantive ones. The Minister says that they do certain things which they may or may not do. But without some advice to us on the consequence of the amendments, we are not in a position in which we can accept them.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

– I would like to raise another point that occurred to me when I sat down. It is in relation to competitive dealings between competitors. I wonder whether the situation I will outline is caught within the provisions of the legislation. I refer to a small corner store grocer who buys his supplies from the local supermarket. I understand that there are few wholesale grocers today and that it is cheaper for many corner store operators, to buy from supermarkets tea for instance, which at the present time is in short supply in parts of Australia. Those people do compete; I suppose the answer might be that there is no exclusionary provision in that case. But I suppose that in every selling activity there is a positive and a negative side. When a supermarket sells, say to a corner store proprietor, it excludes somebody else from buying those goods. I would assume and hope that it would not be the intent of the proposed new section to cover that situation.

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

– I can assure the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) that this is certainly not the intention. Whilst the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes)- I do not say this unkindly- finds it difficult to accept my assurances on the effect of certain provisions, I hope that the honourable member for Higgins will accept my assurances. Obviously what I think is conclusive in the matter is that in the type of example that the honourable gentleman speaks of there are no persons who are the target of the conduct. The whole object of an exclusionary provision is an agreement between two or more people so to arrange things as to exclude the activities and the access of other people. I believe that in the example the honourable member has cited it would be extremely difficult to identify the people who had been singled out as the target of the conduct.

I say to the honourable member for Corio that I will not enter into undue debate with him as to what he believes to be the Opposition’s understanding of this amendment except to observe that I think the honourable member for Grayndler exhibited a fairly good understanding of what was involved in the Government’s amendment. He expressed support for one aspect of the amendment and opposition to another aspect but I did not get the impression as I listened to the honourable member for Grayndler that he found any extraordinary difficulty in understanding precisely what was involved in the amendment. Obviously, because of the nature of this statute there will be argument throughout this entire debate and argument even after the debate is concluded, no matter whether it is concluded tonight or in 6 months time, as to what the Act in its amended form in certain areas means. Notwithstanding the arguments which the honourable member for Corio has put, I do not believe that the change in this area is of such a nature that it is not possible to form a view as to whether one supports or opposes the change. The speech of the honourable member for Grayndler demonstrated fairly clearly that he was able to grasp what was involved, so much so that he was able to identify those areas of the amendment that he liked and those areas that he did not like.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I wish to make one point briefly. Understanding the words and understanding what is proposed is one thing but taking advice on what it means is entirely different. I remind the Minister that in 1965 in this House an Attorney-General named Barwick introduced legislation called the Representation Bill and this year a Chief Justice named Barwick declared that legislation invalid.

Mr Howard:

-He went to the High Court in 1 963. He was not here in 1 965.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Anyway, the Bill was brought into the Parliament when that AttorneyGeneral was in the Parliament. He obviously understood the Bill and what it meant at that time. However, his understanding was quite different when he was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. I suggest to the Minister that any person, whether a lawyer or otherwise, who on 5 minutes or one hour’s examination of a major change in legislation suggests that he understands it, may well be able to speak to that legislation but it is a quite different thing to understand the legislation fully and to have a full knowledge of its legal consequences. That is what we are talking about. This is a major piece of legislation which will deal with the whole substance of commercial life in Australia.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 19-by leave- taken together.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to speak very briefly in relation to clause 17. This is the clause which repeals sections 20 to 24 of the existing Act and they are the sections which set out the procedures in relation to public hearings. The power of the Trade Practices Commission to order a public hearing is dealt with later in this Bill and we will talk then about the merits of having a commission which can, if it wishes, hold public hearings. I think it is appropriate to read into the record some of the facts relating to public hearings because there is a tremendous number of myths propagated in this area of competition law and one is that tremendous expense is incurred by companies as a result of public hearings. Since this Act came into operation in 1 974, with some parts at the beginning of 1975, the vast amount of expense related to its administration does not relate to public hearings at all. It relates to the other administrative adjudications of the Commission and the preventative advice which business firms have to take on these matters.

Sections 20 to 24, which this Bill proposes to repeal, deal with matters like the power to take evidence on oath and the procedure at public hearings, which is worth dealing with now. I want to talk about the sort of things we are proposing to do away with. At the moment when the Commission conducts a public hearing it is obliged by section 21 of the existing Act to see that the proceedings are conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible. The Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence. It gives very broad powers of intervention to persons in those public hearings and that is a very important element of the way in which the Commission goes about its business. Not all of the conclusions of the Swanson Committee report are beyond challenge but at least in this area the Committee was unable to dig up any evidence of excessive obstruction by the Commission.

The mechanics of public hearings have been obstructed by business houses and their legal advisers, and that needs to be said very strongly. The intrusion of legalism in far too strict a way into the Commission’s public hearings has been at the request of business firms. Business firms have added this element to the way in which the Commission conducts its proceedings and when the Commission has sought at every turn to introduce the informality and expedition into the proceedings which the Act enjoins that it should do, counsel advising companies have sought to introduce into the proceedings every legalism from their background in the courts. The Commission in the legal assistance which it has had at public hearings has been very careful not to intrude. There has not been engagement of senior counsel to assist the Commission in its inquiries. It has been assisted by Crown law officers seconded for that purpose and it has been the business firms which have complained about the expense that have introduced this expense at this stage of proceedings.

There are many other proceedings contemplated in the Trade Practices Act at the level of the trade practices tribunal, such as an appeal on authorisation proceedings, and in the courts if need be in relation to enforcement proceedings by the Commission or the Minister and in relation to a very welcome amendment which the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) introduced last year dealing with declaration proceedings. So it is open to any business firm at any time to engage if it wishes in those legalistic trappings and to give itself every bit of advice and assistance it needs and to conduct its case before a court. We heard the Commission reviled so often during 1975 in that rhetoric which was spouted by the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), and about which now they are so shamefaced, in relation to the expense that the Commission was occasioning business. However, let us get it perfectly straight in relation to clause 17 which seeks to repeal the consequential provisions upon the power of the Commission to hold public hearings that if any expense attending public hearings got out of hand it was never the fault of the Commission. In fact, that is the conclusion of the Swanson Committee and it is certainly the experience of all fair observers of the Commission’s proceedings. I suppose it would be logical for the Opposition at this stage to oppose clause 17 on the basis that clearly if we were to prevail with our view that there ought to be public hearings we would need to have consequential provisions in the legislation to set out how the Commission ought to operate. It may be unnecessary to do so now but if it is decided to do so I will defer to my senior colleague, the Opposition spokesman on these matters, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young).

Nonetheless, I think it is important in a debate of this kind that we set the record straight about the way in which the Trade Practices Commission operates public hearings.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-I support the Government’s amendments, especially the amendment concerning section 24 of the Act to which the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) has just referred. I recognise his experience in these matters. He was blaming legalism in the business community for delays at public hearings and before the Commission. I suppose that many businesses would blame delays by bureaucrats on an administrative body which, virtually, the Commission is. It is important to remember that it is not a judicial body. It is not a court. The honourable member for Grayndler answered his own argument by saying that businesses aggrieved still had their rights protected to apply for a declaration or go to the courts of the land. They can still have public hearing in a judicial way and not an administrative way to which this section refers. It is a perfectly proper amendment. The business, company or trader concerned can still have its eyeball to eyeball negotiation with the Trade Practices Commission. If the matter cannot be resolved, it can resort to the courts. Similarly, the honourable member for Grayndler also answered his own criticism when he said that there had not been all that many public hearings. I took him to say that. He can correct me if I am wrong. He indicates that that is so. If that is the case, I believe that is a reason for the amendment which the Government has introduced. Accordingly, I support it.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I join with the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) in expressing views on behalf of the Opposition different from the views of the Government on the abolition of public hearings. No case has been made out as to why this is occurring. A comparison was made with the draft decisions of the Industries Assistance Commission. But they are made available after a public hearing. The Commission itself has set a standard in relation to why it calls a public hearing. This is not under challenge. There may be those who say that such a hearing is expensive and longwinded. Nevertheless, it does the service of maintaining public confidence which is one of the terms used by the Commission itself in outlining why it calls public hearings.

Perhaps some of the cases over the last couple of years in which the Commission has called public hearings have gone on a little longer than they needed. Perhaps there has been a period in which the Commission itself has tried to make everybody understand its purposes. As I said last night, the Commission saw the Act as setting general principles as a guideline for companies to abide by. Now, we are returning to a case by case situation where it will not be as easy for government instrumentalities, in this case the Commission, to see what is happening. I should like to hear from the Minister for Business and Consumer affairs (Mr Howard) why he opposes the selection by the Commission of the public hearings listed in its annual report. These are the tied marketing arrangements of the Shell Company of Australia, the permanent building society insurance requirements, the brewery ties and the Media Council of Australia accreditation agreements. I should have thought there was great public interest in the evidence given at those public hearings. The Commission ought to have been commended for the manner in which it selected those hearings as being public. I cannot understand how we expect to have greater public confidence under this legislation by closing the door- later in the Act we have done that in terms of who can be present at these draft determinations - than we had in the past by holding these public hearings. There have been more than public hearings in relation to one company or one set of circumstances. The Commission has tried to select the activities in which it believes many other operations can find their own levels. I believe that it has done that. I do not believe that this has placed an overburden on the staff of the Commission in the number of public inquiries it has held. If it had, I would have suggested to the Government that the resources ought to be strengthened so that the hearings could continue. The argument used against the hearings by the Government is on very flimsy ground and provokes great suspicion in the community as to why it is occurring. I believe that the Commission is to be commended not criticised for the manner in which it has, in the past, called these public hearings for the public benefit.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to reply to one point raised by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). That is the suggestion that because companies have the option of having their day in court other than at a public hearing of the Trade Practices Commission there is no argument that the Commission ought to be able to order a public hearing. The Commission receives applications for authorisation which it has to determine. It ought to have the option of a public hearing. That is all I am suggesting.

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

– I shall respond to the invitation by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). Before doing so, I shall, to use the words of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam), set the record straight. I should like to make it very clear at the beginning of this debate that we are proceeding on entirely the wrong premise, if the Opposition categorises every amendment that the Government is making to the present Act as being in some way an attack on the performance or the integrity of the Trade Practices Commission. Just because an amendment to legislation might alter the role of the Trade Practices Commission under the new Act, this does not mean that the Government is unhappy with the way in which the Trade Practices Commission has discharged its functions.

I am unable to recollect all those rhetorical speeches I am alleged to have made during 1975 about the role of the Trade Practices Commission. One speech I do remember making in 1975 about the trade practices legislation concerned the behaviour of the former AttorneyGeneral in directing, without giving any reasons, the granting of 3 merger applications. I repeat: No reasons were given. The Trade Practices Commission itself felt so strongly about the matter that it alluded to it in its annual report. I make it quite clear that the fact that the Government has decided to abolish public hearings does not mean that it is unhappy with the Trade Practices Commission. The role of the Commission is to administer the legislation. The role of the Government is to determine what the shape of the legislation should be. That is a traditional and wholly proper division and demarcation of responsibilities between a government and a statutory authority.

This Government respects the role and the integrity of the Trade Practices Commission in discharging its functions in respect of particular cases. Equally, it naturally expects that the relationship between the Government and the Commission will be upon the basis that changes to legislation are the exclusive and total responsibility of the government but, naturally, a responsibility discharged in circumstances in which in appropriate cases the government will, as this Government has done, seek the advice of the Commission and its members.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide asked why we are abolishing public hearings. This is an on balance decision. Arguments can be advanced in favour of retaining public hearings. The arguments he alluded to in respect of the building society, the brewery and the oil company cases contained matters of considerable public interest. It is also fair to say that they involved a situation in which, because of the comparative informality of the proceedings allegations and charges could be made about commercial conduct which might not have been made if stricter rules of evidence applied. Whilst some gentlemen on the other side of the House may not believe that it matters if the commercial reputation of a company is impugned carelessly and without foundation and that is reported in the Press, some people on this side of the House believe that a company, like a person, is entitled to retain a good name until it does, in fact, transgress the law.

I do not deny that there are arguments in favour of keeping public hearings. On balance, the Government has taken the view that to those parties who are involved in public hearings there is expense. It is no answer for the honourable member for Grayndler to say that it is the companies who have engaged the senior counsel. Why would they not do so? It is their rights which are at stake. It is their proposed commercial action which might be under challenge or under censure. Naturally, they are entitled to seek, ought to seek, and, understandably, will seek the type of professional advice which is commensurate with the importance to them. I stress again, as was stressed in the Swanson report, and as was stressed by me when the Government’s intentions in this direction were first made clear, that we are not dealing with a judicial body. We are dealing with a body which makes some determinations of fact. We are dealing with a body whose decisions are appealable to the Trade Practices Commission which is a judicial body, a body whose hearings will naturally continue to be heard in public and a body whose decisions in turn are appealable to higher courts. So we are not in any sense creating a closed shop.

It is for that reason that on balance, recognising that there are arguments in favour of retaining public hearings but also recognising that the arguments against are also very strong, the Government decided to accept the recommendation of the Swanson Committee, noting, of course, as it is fair to do in this context, that in future there will be a system of, as it were, compulsory conferences between Commissioners and parties before the Commission. I am not suggesting that the one is a total exchange for the other. I am not implying, and the Government does not imply, any attack. I reject the suggestion that we have launched any attack on the way in which the Commission has conducted itself. We have formed the view on balance that public hearings ought to go. We do not believe that this compromises any principle. We believe that the fact that people can appeal preserves the integrity of the system.

On balance we believe that there will be cost savings both as far as the Commission is concerned and as far as those involved in the hearings are concerned. That is not unimportant because the burdens of information gathering that government imposes on private enterprise are getting larger every day. I do not think we can just blithely say that it is unimportant because it is not unimportant. Governments make regular and persistent demands on companies and private enterprise generally for information. I think that from time to time there ought to be a stocktaking on a cost-benefit basis as to whether some of those demands are justified.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 20 (Commission to comply with directions of Minister and requirements of the Parliament).

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Clause 20 amends section 29 of the present Act. Section 29 of the present Act gives the Minister power to give directions to the Commission and charges the Commission with compliance with those directions. But it contains a very severe limitation. The existing Act states that the Minister may: . . . give directions to the Commission in connexion with the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers under this Act . . .

It then goes on to state that this is other than those functions or powers related directly or indirectly to Part VII. ‘Directly or indirectly to Part VII’ is a very strong expression. Part VII of the existing Act deals with authorisations and clearances. The authorisations and clearance procedure is the central part of the administration of this Act. It is concerned with the administrative adjudication that the Trade Practices Commission is charged with carrying out day after day.

The Government proposes to amend this section and instead give the Minister a much more elaborate power. That will be a power to give directions as to matters to be given special considerationand I stress those words ‘special consideration’ by the Commission in determining applications for authorisations or in making decisions for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 93 (3). Paragraphs (a) and (b) of that section deal with the notification procedures in relation to exclusive dealing, to which I have alluded earlier this evening. In the view of the Opposition this is a particularly objectionable practice. It is one that the Government is expanding greatly in many clauses of this legislation; that is, it is placing a whole range of anticompetitive behaviour outside the general prohibition contained in section 45 of the Act or indeed, outside the prohibition contemplated by section 45 of the Act introduced by the Minister in December last year, and is transferring it to section 47 which is to deal exclusively and exhaustively with all questions of exclusive dealing.

Exclusive dealing is a most reprehensible practice. It is the practice which has given most concern to the Commission. Frankly, one of the advantages of the public hearings of the Commission to which I have referred is that such hearings have given the Commission the opportunity to hear from parties involved in these practices and from intervenors as to how it might best deal with the practice of exclusive dealing and particularly how it might assess when and if ever there is any public benefit in relation to any of these practices. But now we have the Minister coming baldly before this chamber and asking us to support a proposition that the Minister ought to be able to give directions as to special considerations that the Commission may have regard to.

It is perfectly true that section 29 requires the Minister to cause a copy of that direction to be published in the Gazette. But I do not believe that that is any kind of protection. There is no restriction whatsoever on the matters that the Minister can have regard to as being special. This is a massive departure from the whole scheme of the Act. The scheme of the Act, if I need to go over it again, is to set out general prohibitions and then to charge the Commission with the administration of that law; to develop guidelines in the nature of a dynamic economy and new concepts as they emerge, and to have regard to the particular concerns of markets. But here we have the Minister able to direct the Commission as to the way in which it should discharge its powers in relation to a matter of central importance to the scheme of competition law in Australia. We are given no indication of what these special considerations are to be. They are not confined in any way to having regard to public benefit and to questions of competition law. The Minister can draw them as narrowly or as largely as he likes. They simply have to be special and they can be special to any application; they can be special to any industry. The word ‘special’ is a term of art in law as the Minister would know. This will allow the widest possible area in which he may direct the Commission. I do not think that this point needs to be laboured. It clearly runs against the whole spirit of this legislation.

The Minister made no reference in his second reading speech or indeed in the explanatory memorandum to this draconian power he is now taking unto himself. If I need to scare any of the honourable members opposite, let me just say that it is not likely that they will be in power forever and this power will survive in the Act for a dreadful socialist Minister one day. They can just imagine what the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) will be doing by way of directing that matters are to be given special consideration. It is a quite reprehensible provision and it is not the sort of thing we ought to see in any legislation passed by this Parliament and especially by this House. The Swanson Committee made no recommendation of this sort. I think it is important to say that because we constantly have the Committee’s recommendations called in aid as being in some way a justification of every proposition that the Government is seeking to foist upon us in this legislation. This is not one of those matters, although I naturally reserve the right to contest any recommendation of the Swanson Committee; this is something that the Government has taken unto itself. The Minister referred earlier this evening to how he thought it was a bad thing that once a Minister gave a direction as to a merger that might proceed. How much more reprehensible it is that the practice of exclusive dealing can be authorised on the basis of special considerations which the Minister is allowed to determine with a completely unfettered discretion. On that basis, the Opposition opposes clause 20 of this Bill.

Progress reported.

page 1844

NATIONAL LABOUR CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL BILL 1977

Bill- by leave- presented by Mr Street, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters · Corangamite · LP

– I move:

This Bill proposes the establishment of a continuing tripartite consultative body in the manpower and industrial relations fields to be known as the National Labour Consultative Council.

This is not the first occasion on which there has been a tripartite body for consultations on matters relating to the employment and industrial relations portfolio. From 1954 to 1958, there was a body known as the Ministry of Labour Advisory Council, and in the late 1960s the National Labour Advisory Council was established. Both of these bodies had on them representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the national employers. They met regularly for consultation on a wide range of matters; for example, employment, industrial relations and related industrial and economic matters. Neither of the bodies was established by statute. The National Labour Advisory Council continued to meet until the advent of the Labor Government in 1972. Although it was never formally wound-up it has not met since that time.

The employment and industrial relations policy of the Government specifically provides for the re-establishment of a national tripartite consultative body similar to the National Labour Advisory Council but with a more effective charter. It also provides for the new consultative body to be established on a statutory basis and not merely to be available for use if required by the Minister. It would have an obligation to meet regularly. In January 1976, shortly after the Government came to office, I conferred with representatives of the national employers and the peak union councils with a view to seeking their agreement to the implementation of this policy objective. At those discussions substantial consensus was achieved in relation to the establishment and charter of a national tripartite body. Subsequently, however, the ACTU indicated that it was not prepared to participate in the body.

Obviously, the effectiveness of any tripartite machinery depends upon the willingness of all parties to participate in it. I am therefore pleased to be able to say now that, following discussions on 1 1 May between me and representatives of the peak union councils on the Government’s proposed industrial relations legislation, the ACTU has indicated that it would be prepared to join a re-constituted tripartite consultative council. Representatives of the national employers associations have also reiterated their previous agreement to join such a council. The Bill proposes that the new body should be known as the National Labour Consultative Council. Its purpose will be to provide a regular and formal means by which representatives of the Government and employer and employee organisations may consult together on manpower matters and industrial relations matters of national concern.

Its charter is stated in general terms and will enable discussion of, among other matters, employment, training, industrial legislation and international labour issues. I believe that the creation of the Council as a statutory body will not only enhance its status in the community but will also ensure its continuance as an essential channel for communications in the labour field. Let me briefly outline the other main provisions of the Bill.

Composition of the Council

The Bill proposes that the Council comprise 1 6 members: The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who shall be the Chairman; the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations; 1 member chosen by the Minister to represent public authorities as employers; 6 members nominated by the National Employers’ Policy Committee; 6 members nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions; and 1 member nominated by the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations.

Meetings of the Council

The Bill provides that meetings of the Council be held at least once a quarter. In addition the Minister may convene a meeting at any other time and is obliged to do so whenever requested by a majority of the members of the Council.

Establishment of Committees

The Bill also empowers the Council to establish committees and refer to them for consideration and report any matter relevant to the purpose of the Council. The establishment of the Council proposed by this Bill represents a further and fundamental step in the progressive implementation of the industrial relations policies of the Government. Effective consultation and communication between government, employer and employee organisations is vital for the development of our nation. If Parliament agrees to the enactment of this legislation I shall take immediate steps to bring the Council into operation.

The ACTU has already indicated that among the early issues which might be considered by the new Council could be an examination of the operations of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In my 13 May statement welcoming the acceptance by the ACTU of an Industrial Relations Bureau and the re-constitution of a tripartite consultative council, I stressed that the Government was committed to legislating for the protection of individual rights in the industrial relations area but that it was prepared to review the provisions on these and other matters relating to the operation of the Act contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill laid before the Parliament on 3 1 March in the light of their further consideration by the new Council. I will be asking the Council to consider these questions as a matter of priority. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 1846

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

In Committee

Considered resumed.

Clause 20.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Like the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) I express the view that it seems strange that the Government has acted upon the recommendations of the Swanson Committee in relation to the previous powers of the Minister under the Trade Practices Act. Whilst not having any recommendations from Swanson- who seemed to be such an influential guide to what the Government was going to write into the new Bill- the Government has added something to those powers. I am one of those parliamentarians who believe that Parliament ought to accept all the responsibilities for the decisions that have to be made in relation to the general Australian community. I do not believe that we should be passing off our responsibilities to authorities, groups or committees outside the Parliament in the hope that by that method we can escape the responsibility of governing the country. I do not find it unique or amusing that Swanson, with the makeup of the committee as it was, would have found the powers of the Minister under the old Act abhorrent. Nevertheless, I am amused that the Government has acted upon the Swanson Committee recommendations in relation to the powers of the Minister as they were which, I understand, were used no more than 3 times and which were on public view for criticism if need be, so that now we find that proposed new section 29 of the principal Act will read:

  1. 1 ) The Minister may-

    1. give directions as to matters to be given special consideration by the Commission in determining applications for authorizations or in making decisions for the purposes of paragraph 93 (3) (a) or (b); and
    2. give directions to the Commission in connexion with the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers under this Act, not including, except as mentioned in paragraph (a), functions or powers related directly or indirectly to Part VII, and the Commission shall comply with any directions so given.

It would seem to me, on reading what is contained in the new Bill, that the Government is somewhat attracted by the initial motivations of the Labor Government Act as far as trade practices are concerned but that, rather than give it some sort of recognition, the Government decided to change the compliance. It has to be either one thing or the other. Either the Government believes in ministerial or parliamentary responsibility as far as some of these decisions are concerned or it does not. As we heard in the second reading debate, in spite of the setting up of commissions such as the Trade Practices Commission there is an ultimate responsibility with the Parliament to see that all works well and in accord with not only what we may think is fair competition but also what we think is in the long term interests of Australia. But, rather than give recognition to the Labor Government for what it did in the original Act, that Act has been changed somewhat without any recommendation from the Swanson Committee, upon whose recommendations the previous powers are now being repealed. I think that warrants a somewhat lengthier explanation by the Minister.

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

– The only change that is to be made to the provision that is presently section 29-1 will use a shorthand expression and say that that is the Labor Government provision so that we know that we are talking about the present Act as opposed to the previous Bill- is that a proviso is to be inserted that directions may be given as to special considerations which will prevail in respect of certain authorisation activities of the Trade Practices Commission. I draw a very real distinction between the power that currently exists in the Act for the Minister to direct the granting of a merger and the general power to give directions as to matters that in general should be taken into account in determining authorisation matters.

Mr Young:

– Are you opposed to the powers of the Minister under the old merger provisions or are you satisfied with the change in the merger provisions?

Mr HOWARD:

-If the honourable gentleman allows me to continue my remarks I hope to be able to enlighten him. I was drawing a distinction between giving a Minister a power to direct that a particular case- in other words, a merger between company A and company B- should proceed and a situation in which a Minister has a power to say to the Commission: ‘In determining all merger applications or all exclusive dealing matters you ought to take into account the following factors’. I should have thought that it would be obvious to honourable members that a situation in which a Minister has the power in effect to determine the fate of a particular merger by a precise instruction to the Commissionwhich is the situation under the present law- is an entirely different proposition from a situation in which a Minister has a power to say to the Commission: ‘In determining your authorisations in respect of a particular category of conduct we want you to take these criteria into account’. I remind the honourable gentleman that, in the context of the Industries Assistance Commission, there is all the world of difference between the Minister having the power to request the IAC in the future to take into account the employment consequences of its recommendations, which I think is a wholly proper power, and the type of power that would be involved if the Minister were to say to the Industries Assistance Commission: ‘We want you to recommend a particular level of assistance ‘.

Mr Young:

– The IAC is an advisory body.

Mr HOWARD:

– I concede the honourable gentleman’s interjection that the IAC is an advisory body and we have total power. Nonetheless, in terms of the laying down of guidelines that might influence the nature of the Commission’s recommendations, I believe that one can still draw an analogy. I would defend very strongly this proviso as being quite different from the type of thing that we are proposing to repeal insofar as it affects mergers. I would argue that the Trade Practices Commission, like the Industries Assistance Commission and a number of other bodies, is a body which from time to time, because of the impact of its decisions generally as opposed to the impact of its decisions in particular cases, does have an impact on general economic trends. As the honourable gentleman himself would argue very robustly- and I agree with him- ultimately it is for the Parliament and governments to be responsible for trends in the economy.

I am putting to the House very simply that I believe that if a government is concerned about the cumulative economic consequences of decisions made by statutory authorities in good faith and in total integrity it has not only a right but also a duty to give directions to that body and suggest that particular criteria should be taken into account so that if that government wants the trend of those decisions, insofar as their cumulative economic impact is concerned, to be altered it can see that they are altered. That is an entirely different situation from allowing a Minister in effect to second guess the Trade Practices Commission insofar as a particular decision is concerned. I think that, whatever the integrity of the Minister and whatever the party in power, that does involve a situation in which suggestions can inevitably be made that particular companies are being favoured and that directions are being given because particular results are sought.

What is sought here is not a situation in which a Minister can direct the Commission to find that a particular application or authorisation should be granted but a situation in which a Minister or the Government through the Minister is able to say to the Commission: ‘We want you to take these things into account. For example, in the future we want you to take into account the impact of your consideration of authorisation applications on employment, capital investment and a whole range of matters’. It could well be a power that might not be used for many yearsthe type of power that might only be used if a government believed that the cumulative effects of decisions taken by the Commission in this area created an economic trend or an economic situation that that government wished to alter or perhaps even reverse.

That is the purpose of it. It is distinguishable, and I think quite clearly distinguishable, from a power that gives to the Minister a capacity to overrule the determination of the Commission on the merits of a particular case. In other words, what we are talking about here is the capacity to give guidelines- to use the modern idiom- to the considerations of the Commission and not a situation in which the Minister should have the power to say to the Commission: ‘We want you to grant an authorisation in relation to the application of XYZ Pty Ltd’. It is that type of power that I think is objectionable. It is that type of power that we have attacked in the past. I think it is the type of power that the honourable gentleman himself -

Mr Young:

– But which one of the decisions would you back? That is more important.

Mr HOWARD:

– In fairness to the honourable gentleman’s colleague in the former Government, what I am talking about is the concept. I think it is unfortunate in relation to legislation like this, having said as one’s kicking off point that one is going to let the Commission decide the merits of particular cases, that one should then have a reserve power for the Minister to overturn the decision of the Commission in that case. I think that is the type of power that can bring government into disrepute. If one is going to have that type of power one may well ask:

Why have a statutory commission in the first place? Why not do it all through a Minister’s department? The whole purpose of having a statutory commission is, as far as practicable, to insulate the individual decision-making process in particular cases from the mechanisms of government. I think that is a sound principle. I do not think it is inconsistent with the concept of parliamentary government. Having elected to go that route, I think it is then a nonsense to reserve to the Minister the capacity to overturn individual decisions. But I do distinguish very strongly between a capacity to overturn individual decisions and a capacity to lay down general guidelines within which all decisions in a certain category shall be made.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– With respect, I think we ought to set the record straight on the existing powers of the Minister in relation to merger applications. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) suggests that the power that the Minister possesses to direct that a merger application be approved or be authorised exists only after a determination by the Commission. In fact, of course, in the same way as is now proposed with revised section 29 the direction can be given before the determination.

Mr Howard:

– Effectively.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, that is correct. It can be given at either time. But it certainly could be given beforehand. The same words ‘special consideration’ are used in proposed section 29 ( 1). The Minister himself drew attention to the way in which he will be able to give directions which are so specific in relation to any application for an authorisation or in relation to the consideration of a notification of exclusive dealing. But the very specificity with which he draws his directions will ensure that such an application must be granted. The Minister could indicate that a special consideration ought to be that so many units of cars be produced, that the work force be made up of so many numbers or that a plant be located in a city of high unemployment. He could draw the directions so specifically that they must cover the situation which any company might be contemplating in relation to any restrictive practice that would be caught by an application to which this section applies.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

Following what the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) had to say, let me point out on behalf of this side of the chamber that the

Minister’s specific responsibility under the previous Act seems to me to have a far more desirable impact upon the force of the law than does the amendment now moved by the Government. I am not greatly attracted to political interference in the Trade Practices Commission. I know from what members of the Commission have written that the Commission is not greatly attracted to the idea of political interference. As they say, they do not consider themselves merely an advisory body.

I was interested to Hear the Minister say that it was far more beneficial as far as the Parliament was concerned, irrespective of who was in power, to have a general guideline rather than a specific guideline. From reading the reports of the Commission, it would seem to me that the Commission was not very happy about the relationship between the previous Act and themselves in relation to specific directions. We do not stand here tonight to defend that.

It was interesting to note the Minister say that the Trade Practices Commission in reaching a decision had to be cognisant of economic factors, Government economic objectives and all of the nice cliches which political parties and politicians use. I would be very amazed if that sounds a more attractive set of guidelines to the Commission than does the old system under which the Minister made a specific decision in relation to where he had the power. As I said, that power was used 3 times. If the Government, acting on the advice of Swanson, had merely repealed this power there would be less objection from this side of the House. But to re-write this function, to interpret it in the manner in which the Minister had done and then to compare it perhaps in terms of the relationship between the Government and the Industries Assistance Commission seems rather amazing. What the Minister is really saying is that he wants the Government to have the ultimate control anyhow, and that the Trade Practices Commission must act within the confines of the Government’s economic objectives, not merely by the way in which the Government writes the law but in the broad sense of saying that the Minister will give directions that will not be specific but which the Commission it hopes, will understand.

The Minister knows that since he has been the Minister responsible for the IAC he has sent off a couple of letters to that body which merely refer in similar tones to the Act itself how the IAC will conduct itself in bringing down its recommendations, taking into account the economy, employment and so forth. But, ultimately when these recommendations get back here, as they did during our term of government and as they will during the term of the present Government, once they reach the Cabinet a decision has to be made. Occasionally governments like to hide behind the IAC and say: ‘Well, they are using all their expertise and we are adopting their recommendations’. But now the Government says that it is not going to write a letter to the Trade Practices Commission but rather it is going to write into the legislation a very cosy clause that in future the Commission will be cognisant of its economic objectives. As I say, that does not seem to me to be a more attractive offer than the previous legislation contained as far as the independence of the Trade Practices Commission is concerned. I would suggest that the Government has gone overboard in this matter. There does not seem to be any reason why it should propose this action. It has not pointed to any specific cases outside of being critical of the activities of perhaps the former Government in relation to the 3 cases I have mentioned. Nevertheless, the Government proposes to write into the Act the power to give general guidelines to the Trade Practices Commission.

When we think about it, the Commission has talked about the establishment of some sort of long term guidelines which competitors can understand so that proper business conduct can be achieved. But if the Minister was to write a letter every 3 months to the Commission and say: ‘Look, you are slightly off course. Will you please come back on course? This is not really what the Government is about. Will you start making decisions slightly different from what you have been making to reflect Government policy or decisions’, it seems to me that we are making the role of the Commission slightly impossible.

I do not think that the Minister has presented an argument as to why he should write in the new powers of the Minister. At the same time, he has based his argument on the need to take out the powers of the Minister under the old Act. If we were to support the repeal of the power of the Minister under the old Act we certainly could not support the power given to the Minister in this Bill.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

– I disagree completely with what the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has just said about the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard). I thought that the Minister most adequately explained this provision which I regard as a potential link provision between the Industries Assistance Commission and perhaps the Prices Justification Tribunal Act. Only last night the honourable member for Port Adelaide said that there is conflict, or potential conflict, between at least the IAC and the trade practice laws. I welcomed the honourable member’s sensible comments in that regard. I had a degree of agreement with him in this respect. I think we should accept and welcome the Minister’s assurances in relation to this part of the legislation. We should see this part of the legislation as a link between those provisions in respect of which a government has ultimate responsibility to make decisions. In fact this is something that could be welcomed and used to avoid conflicts. Perhaps this area is a challenge for governments in the future.

Question put-

That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 71

NOES: 29

Majority…… 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 21.

Section 3 1 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section ( 1 ) and substituting the following sub-section: ‘(1) A person shall not be appointed as a presidential member of the Tribunal unless he is a Judge of a Federal Court, not being the High Court or a court of an external Territory.’.

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

– I move:

  1. ) Omit the clause, substitute the following clause: ‘21. Section 3 1 of the Principal Act is amended-

    1. by omitting sub-section ( 1 ) and substituting the following sub-section: ‘( 1 ) A person shall not be appointed as a presidential member of the Tribunal unless he is a Judge of a Federal Court, not being the High Court or a court of an external Territory.’; and
    2. by inserting in sub-section (2), after the word ‘commerce’, the words, ‘economics, law’.’.
Mr Young:

– Can the Minister tell us what is involved? I know he has been caught but, unfortunately, we are caught also. Can he tell us exactly what this amendment is all about otherwise we might be restricting David Jones Pty Ltd, Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd or some other company?

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It has nothing to do with David Jones Pty Ltd or Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the qualifications required for a non-residential member of the Trade Practices Tribunal shall be precisely the same as those required for a member of the Trade Practices Commission. It is a wholly logical, wholly unexceptional and wholly reasonable amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22.

Section 33 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections ( 1 ) and (4).

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

– I move:

  1. At the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: ‘(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 applies, and shall be deemed always to have applied, to and in relation to a President of the Trade Practices Tribunal who retired as a Judge of the Australian Industrial Court as if he had been Chief Judge of that Court immediately before his retirement. ‘.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the pension paid to an ex-president of the Trade Practices Tribunal is related to the salaries of judges of the new Federal Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clauses 22A and 22B.

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

– I ask for leave to move the insertion of new clauses 22A and 22B.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr HOWARD:

– I move:

  1. 8 ) After clause 22, insert the following new clauses: ‘22A. Section 35 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2) the word ‘Attorney-General ‘ and substituting the word ‘Minister’. ‘22B. Section 44 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2) the word ‘Attorney-General’ and substituting the word ‘Minister’..

The purpose of these new clauses is simply to allow the reallocation of responsibilities between relevant Ministers who have specific responsibilities under this Act. As the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) will be aware, there is a division in this Act for which the Minister for Transport has ministerial responsibility. I assure the honourable gentleman that there is nothing snide or underhand in this proposal. I think it is the type of provision which we ought to have in legislation where ministerial responsibility is divided between different Ministers.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-To restate the Opposition’s case in relation to ministerial responsibility for the Trade Practices Act, we have said previously, and we acted upon this in Government, that we wished to see consumer affairs taken out of this area and given to a different Minister, as in the case of restrictive trade practices. It is still the view held by members on this side of the House that the contradiction of the one Minister being responsible for restrictive trade practices and consumer affairs is not in the best interest of consumers. We would switch those areas back. We do not see anything snide in that, although in a future Labor administration trade practices would once again be the responsibility of the Attorney-General. There would be nothing snide about changing back the responsibility.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Very briefly, I want to support what the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has said. I do not think I can restate too often the objection the Labor Party has to the administration of this legislation being with a Minister who has such conflicting responsibilities. That is not in any way meant as a personal reflection on the incumbent. It is simply an unsatisfactory administrative arrangement. We are talking about the Trade Practices Tribunal, which earlier tonight the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) conceded is a tribunal of a semi-judicial nature, and yet here we have important questions such as the suspension and removal of members of the Tribunal and the staff of the Tribunal, and particularly the question of who conducts the registries of the Tribunal, being taken away from the First Law Officer of Australia and vested in the Minister. The Opposition believes that that is an inappropriate way to organise the business of the Tribunal.

Proposed new clauses agreed to.

Clause 23.

Sections 45, 46 and 47 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections substituted: ‘45. (1) If a provision of a contract made before the commencement of the Trade Practices Amendment Act 1977-

  1. is an exclusionary provision; or
  2. has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition, that provision is unenforceable in so far as it confers rights or benefits or imposes duties or obligations on a corporation. ‘(3) For the purposes of this section and section 45a, ‘competition’, in relation to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, means competition in any market in which a corporation that is a party to the contract, arrangement or understanding or would be a party to the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, or any body corporate related to such a corporation, supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire, goods or services or would, but for the provision, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services. ‘(5) The making of a contract, arrangement or understanding does not constitute a contravention of this section by reason that the contract, arrangement or understanding contains a provision the giving effect to which would, or would but for the operation of sub-section 88 (8) or section 93, constitute a contravention of section 47 and this section does not apply to or in relation to the giving effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding by way of-
  3. engaging in conduct that contravenes, or would but for the operation of sub-section 88 (8) or section 93 contravene, section 47; or
  4. doing an act by reason of a breach or threatened breach of a condition referred to in sub-section 47 (2), (4), (6) or (8), being an act done by a person at a time when-
  5. an authorization under sub-section 88 (7) is in force in relation to conduct engaged in by that person on that condition; or ‘45a.(1) …. ‘ ( 2 ) Sub-section ( 1 ) does not apply to a provision of a contract or arrangement made or of an understanding arrived at, or of a proposed contract or arrangement to be made or of a proposed understanding to be arrived at, for the purposes of a joint venture to the extent that the provision relates or would relate to-
  6. the joint supply by the parties to the joint venture of goods jointly produced by those parties in pursuance of the joint venture; ‘(7) For the purposes of the preceding provisions of this section but without limiting the generality of those provisions, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, shall be deemed to have the purpose, or to have or to be likely to have the effect, of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, the price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, goods supplied as mentioned in sub-section ( 1 ) if the provision has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, such a price, discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to a re-supply of the goods by persons to whom the goods are or would be supplied by the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding or the proposed parties to the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, or by any of them, or by any bodies corporate that are related to any of them. ‘45b. (1) ‘(3 ) Where a person-
  7. issues an invitation to another person to enter into a contract containing a covenant;
  8. b ) makes an offer to another person to enter into a contract containing a covenant; or
  9. makes it known that the person will not enter into a contract of a particular kind unless the contract contains a covenant of a particular kind or in particular terms, the first-mentioned person shall, by issuing that invitation, making that offer or making that fact known, be deemed to require the giving of the covenant. ‘(4) The requiring of the giving of, or the giving of, a covenant does not constitute a contravention of this section by reason that giving effect to the covenant would, or would but for the operation of sub-section 88 ( 8 ) or section 93, constitute a contravention of section 47 and this section does not apply to or in relation to engaging in conduct in relation to a covenant by way of-
  10. conduct that contravenes, or would but for the operation of sub-section 88 (8) or section 93 contravene, section 47; or
  11. doing an act by reason of a breach or threatened breach of a condition referred to in sub-section 47 (2), (4), (6) or (8), being an act done by a person at a time when-
  12. an authorization under sub-section 88 (7) is in force in relation to conduct engaged in by that person on that condition; or ‘(5) This section does not apply to or in relation to a covenant or proposed covenant where the only persons who are or would be respectively bound by, or entitled to the benefit of, the covenant or proposed covenant are persons who are associated with each other. 45c.(l) …. ‘(4) For the purposes of the preceding provisions of this section, but without limiting the generality of those provisions-
  13. a proposed covenant shall be deemed to have the purpose, or to have, or to be likely to have, the effect, of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, the price for, or a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to, goods supplied as mentioned in sub-section (2) if the proposed covenant has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, as the case may be, of fixing, controlling or maintaining, or providing for the fixing, controlling or maintaining of, such a price, discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to a re-supply of the goods by persons to whom the goods are supplied by the persons who would, or would but for sub-section 45B ( 1 ), be bound by or entitled to the benefit of the proposed covenant, or by any of them, or by any persons associated with any of them. ‘45d.(1) ‘(3) A person shall not be taken to contravene, or to be involved in a contravention of, sub-section ( 1) by engaging in conduct where the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to-
  14. the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of that person or of another person employed by an employer of that person; or
  15. an employer of that person having terminated, or taken action to terminate, the employment of that person or of another person employed by that employer. ‘47. ( 1 ) Subject to this section, a corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in the practice of exclusive dealing. ‘(3) A corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses-
  16. to supply goods or services to a person; (0 in the case of a refusal in relation to the supply or proposed supply of goods, has re-supplied, or has not agreed not to re-supply, goods, or goods of a particular kind or description, acquired from the corporation-

    1. to particular persons or classes of persons or to persons other than particular persons or classes of persons; or
    2. in particular places or classes of places or in places other than particular places or classes of places. ‘( 10) Sub-section ( 1 ) does not apply to the practice of exclusive dealing constituted by a corporation engaging in conduct of a kind referred to in sub-section (2 ), ( 3 ), (4) or ( 5 ) or paragraph (8) (a) or (b) or (9) (a), (b) or (c) unless the enaging by the corporation in that conduct has, or is likely to ave, the effect of substantially lessening competition. ‘(13) Sub-section (1) does not apply with respect to any conduct by way of-
  17. ) the making of a contract or arrangement, or the arriving at an understanding, if paragraph 45 (2) (a) applies in relation to that conduct by reason that the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding contains an exclusionary provision; or
  18. the giving effect to a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding if that provision is an exclusionary provision. ‘( 14) In this sectionfa) .
  19. a reference to competition, in relation to conduct to which a provision of this section other than subsection (8) or (9) applies, shall be read as a reference to competition in any market in which-

    1. the corporation engaging in the conduct or any body corporate related to that corporation; or
    2. any person whose business dealings are restricted, limited or otherwise circumscribed by the conduct or, if that person is a body corporate, any body corporate related to that body corporate, supplies or acquires goods or services or would, but for the conduct, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services; and
  20. a reference to competition, in relation to conduct to which sub-section (8) or (9) applies, shall be read as a reference to competition in any market in which the corporation engaging in the conduct or any other corporation the business dealings of which are restricted, limited or otherwise circumscribed by the conduct, or any body corporate related to either of those corporations, supplies or acquires goods or services or would, but for the conduct, supply or acquire, or be likely to supply or acquire, goods or services. ‘.
Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-On a point of procedure, it is going to be very difficult to deal with clause 23 in its totality, if I can use the word of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). On the basis that there will be no restriction on Opposition members who wish to contribute to the debate, we are prepared to take the clause in its totality in order to shorten the proceedings of the Committee. Nevertheless, a great deal of legislation is involved, and even when it is passed there will not be anybody in the House who understands it. Some very significant changes are to be made to the law, and I seek from the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) an assurance that there will not be any restrictions if all the amendments to clause 23 are taken together.

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

– Consistent with the Government’s desire to have this Bill passed this evening, we would not wish to place any undue restrictions on the participation of Opposition members in the debate on this clause. My response has to be that, in general terms, the Government will not be placing any undue restriction on the debate. Equally, there has to be mutuality involved. I point out to the honourable gentleman that before the dinner adjournment the Government did not use its numbers to prevent both himself and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) making, first a second second reading speech and, secondly, a first second reading speech on a purely procedural motion. Having been asked to use forbearance, I would ask the Opposition to do likewise.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond) -Could I suggest to the Minister that it might be appropriate for him to move amendments Nos 9 to 22 together as they deal with clause 23.

Mr HOWARD:

-I seek leave of the House to do so.

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

Mr HOWARD:

-I move:

  1. After proposed sub-section (3), insert the following sub-section: “ ‘(3a) For the purposes of the application of this section in relation to a particular corporation, a provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding or of a proposed contract, arrangement or understanding shall be deemed to have or to be likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition if that provision and any one or more of the following provisions, namely-

    1. the other provisions of that contract, arrangement or understanding or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding; and
    2. the provisions of any other contract, arrangement or understanding or proposed contract, arrangement or understanding to which the corporation or a body corporate related to the corporation is or would be a party, together have or are likely to have that effect. “.
  2. In proposed section 45(5)(b)(i), omit “(7)”, substitute”(8)”.
  3. 1) In proposed section 45a (2) (a) before “of goods”, insert, “or the supply by the parties to the joint venture in proportion to their respective interests in the joint venture, ‘ ‘.
  4. 12) In proposed section 45a, after proposed sub-section (7), insert the following sub-section: “ ‘(8) The reference in sub-section ( 1 ) to the supply or acquisition of goods or services by persons in competition with each other includes a reference to the supply or acquisition of goods or services by persons who, but for a provision of any contract, arrangement or understanding or of any proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, would be, or would be likely to be, in competition with each other in relation to the supply or acquisition of the goods or services. ‘ ‘.
  5. In proposed section 45b after proposed sub-section ( 3 ), insert the following sub-section: “ ‘(3a) For the purposes of this section, a covenant or proposed covenant shall be deemed to have, or to be likely to ave, the effect of substantially lessening competition in a market if the covenant or proposed covenant, as the case may be, would have, or be likely to have, that effect when taken together with the effect or likely effect on competition in that market of any other covenant or proposed covenant to the benefit of which-

    1. a corporation that, or person who, is or would be, or but for sub-section (1) would be, entitled to the benefit of the first-mentioned covenant or proposed covenant; or
    2. a person associated with the corporation referred to in paragraph (a) or a corporation associated with the person referred to in that paragraph, is or would be, or but for sub-section (1) would be, entitled.”.
  6. 14) In proposed section 45B (4) (b) (i), omit “(7)”, substitute “(8)”.
  7. 15) In proposed section 45b, at the end of proposed subsection (5), add “or other bodies corporate that are related to each other”.
  8. After sub-section (4) of proposed section 45c, insert the following sub-section: “ ‘(5) The reference in sub-section ( 1 ) to the supply or acquisition of goods or services by persons in competition with each other includes a reference to the supply or acquisition of goods or services by persons who, but for a provision of any contract, arrangement or understanding or of any proposed contract, arrangement or understanding, would be, or would be likely to be, in competition with each other in relation to the supply or acquisition of the goods or services. “.
  9. 17) In proposed section 45D, omit proposed sub-section (3), substitute the following sub-section: “(3) A person shall not be taken to contravene, or to be involved in a contravention of, sub-section ( 1 ) by engaging in conduct where-

    1. the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to-
    1. the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of that person or of another person employed by an employer of that person; or
    2. an employer of that person having terminated, or taken action to terminate, the employment of that person or of another person employed by that employer; or

    3. in the case of conduct engaged in by the following persons in concert with each other (and not in concert with any other person), that is to say-
    1. an organisation or organisations of employees, or an officer or officers of such an organisation, or both such an organisation or organisations and such an officer or officers; and
    2. ii ) an employee, or two or more employees who are employed by the one employer, the dominent purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to-
    3. the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of the employee, or of any of the employees, referred to in sub-paragraph (ii); or
    4. the employer of the employee, or of the employees, referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) having terminated, or taken action to terminate, the employment of any of his employees. ‘.
  10. In proposed section 47 (3) (0 after ‘goods. ‘(first appearing), insert ‘has re-supplied, or has not agreed not to resupply, goods, or goods of a particular kind or description, acquired from the corporation to any person, or’.
  11. In proposed section 47, omit proposed sub-section (10), substitute the following sub-section:- “(10) Sub-section ( 1 ) does not apply to the practice of exclusive dealing constituted by a corporation engaging in conduct of a kind referred to in sub-section (2), (3), (4) or (5) or paragraph ( 8 ) ( a) or ( b ) or ( 9 ) ( a ), ( b ) or ( c ) unless-

    1. the engaging by the corporation in that conduct has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition; or
    2. the engaging by the corporation in that conduct, and the engaging by the corporation, or by a body corporate related to the corporation, in other conduct of the same or a similar kind, together have or are likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition.’.
  12. In proposed section 47, omit proposed sub-section (13).
  13. In proposed section 47 (14) (6), ‘acquires’, insert, ‘ or is likely to supply or acquire, ‘.
  14. In proposed section 47(14)(c), after ‘acquires’, insert ‘ , or is likely to supply or acquire, ‘.

The Government’s amendment No. 9 deals with the question of aggregation. The effect of the amendment is to provide that in determining the effects upon competition of a provision of an agreement for the purposes of the application of section 45 to a particular corporation, regard shall be had to the competitive effects of other provisions to which the corporation or a related body corporate is a party. To use an example which will be well known to Opposition members who are participating in this debate, the effect of this clause will be that in considering, say, the anti-competitive effect of an agreement between oil company A and a petrol re-seller the Commission will be able to pay regard to the effects of other agreements of a like nature between the same oil company and other petrol resellers.

The view which has been expressed very strongly by quite a cross-section of practitioners in this area is that if we did not have an aggregation clause of this nature it could be virtually impossible in certain circumstances for the Commission to find that a particular agreement had an anti-competitive effect, unless it were possible for the Commission to assess the anticompetitive effect of that agreement against the background of assessing the totality of the anticompetitive effect of similar agreements to which the same company is also a party. It is an addition which in no sense weakens the existing provisions of the legislation. Rather, many would argue very strongly that it is a clause which is necessary to make more certain that the stated purposes of clause 45 do in fact operate.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Clause 23 is quite the major provision in this Bill. It covers 16 pages of the Bill and deals with a very great number of issues. The one which particularly agitates members on this side of the Committee is proposed new section 45D. Indeed, it seems too that it delights honourable members opposite. But the reach of this clause is much wider than that and, as I anticipated earlier in the debate, the Opposition would have welcomed the amendments which would have included the proposed new section 45. This is a great improvement on the existing section 45 and brings to bear on anti-competitive behaviour language which is much more appropriate for Australia and language which will be much more easily understood by the market place, by the Commission and by the parties who have to take applications to the Commission.

I think that the very artificiality of the way in which the legislation has been constructed has brought problems for the Government. We referred earlier this evening to the way in which a new concept of exclusionary provisions has had to be erected, which is recognised here in proposed new section 45. This is simply so that later in the Act in new section 45D we can erect this new concept in relation to secondary boycotts in order that a little bit of union bashing can be engaged in. The first thing to say is that sections 45A, 45B, 45C and 45D are supposed to be by way of amplication of the proposed new section 45. In fact, of course, they are nothing of the son. Section 45 is designed to deal with contracts and arrangements or understandings restricting dealings or affecting competition, but section 45D does not deal simply with competition. It deals initially with damage being done to a corporation. That has nothing to do with anticompetitive behaviour. The amendments effected to section 46 are, from the Opposition’s point of view, unobjectionable. But again, like the rest of these amendments in clause 23, they are contaminated by the presence of proposed section 45D and therefore will be opposed.

It is in relation to proposed section 47 that the Opposition has the strongest objections. The socalled system of symmetry, of legislative tidiness, and of translating of vertical behaviour to the exclusive dealing provision contained in proposed new section 47 is positively inimical to the encouragement of competition in the Australian market place. The Minister was frank enough earlier this evening to allow that this was the very firm intention of the Government. Again tonight, amendment No. 20 that he has just moved and which stands in the name of the Government will amend the proposed clause to give effect to this by taking outside the provision of proposed section 45 ( 1 ) yet again contracts which contain socalled exclusionary provisions and ensuring that they are dealt with in proposed section 47 which is to cover all exclusive dealings.

The consequence of this is very important. It is not altogether true to say, as the explanatory memorandum circulated by the Minister does, that a notification of exclusive dealing will automatically grant an immunity until that notification is disallowed, as it were, by the Trade Practices Commission. In fact, in relation to sub-sections (6) and (7) of proposed new section 47 the same procedure will apply as now applies under the present section 47 (4), that is, that just as with section 47 (4) at the moment no statutory interim clearance is available there will be by this behaviour, as it were, not putative authorisation available. But the main problem is that for a great deal of this behaviour such an authorisation now becomes automatically available.

In addition, there is another item which is well worth remarking upon in relation to this clause. The Minister has now introduced another piece of legislation- I am speaking specifically of proposed new section 47- which does not catch ordinary commercial requirement contracts. In the legislation that he introduced last December they were covered and would have been dealt with if they were anti-competitive under the exclusive dealing provisions. They are now not expressly dealt with at all. That also is a major deficiency in this legislation. I am delighted that the Minister has come clean. I think that makes my position much easier. That was not done earlier. It was not done in the explanatory memorandum in which everything was passed off merely as being a tidying up operation. I do not think it is necessary to say more than this: It is a great shame that we could not have had this legislation presented to us in a way that the Opposition could have allowed at least a great part of proposed new section 45 and the next 3 proposed new sections to be passed without having to oppose them. We think that they improve the Act, particularly in relation to land and in the way in which the legislation seeks to get over the unduly restrictive interpretations of the court in the Quadramain case. That will be a great improvement to the Act.

We are unable to overlook the mischief that would be done to the fabric of our society by the quite unnecessary inclusion of proposed new section 45d. It does not- this is where the Government must meet the challenge- deal simply with anti-competitive behaviour. It goes beyond that to deal with behaviour that in any event, not even upon the purest view, should have a place in competition law. I think that the Minister will have to concede that. Our differences are clear in relation to proposed section 47. 1 only wish that the Minister would go beyond saying: ‘Yes, you have found us out. We have sought to take out a great deal of behaviour which presently is prohibited under section 45 and which would ave been prohibited under section 45 in the legislation that was introduced earlier this month and put it into section 47 to give it the advantage of being characterised as exclusive dealing and therefore able to get the preferential treatment in relation to notifications of that conduct which arises in Part VII of the Act ‘. The Minister should have moved beyond saying: ‘Yes, that is our purpose’, and should have explained to the House why that should be the case.

The Minister ought to be aware, and I believe is aware, that this goes against the whole scheme of the Act. This scheme was meant to prohibit behaviour and persons who wanted to justify anti-competitive behaviour had to have that behaviour treated as the exception. Now we have the situation arising in which, in relation to exclusive dealing, the boot is on the other foot. All people have to do is simply to notify the Commission that they are engaging in this behaviour. The Commission cannot now act, and previously could act, simply to dismiss that notification because the behaviour is anti-competitive. It has to go on and determine whether a public benefit is involved. This is something that we will deal with later on. It poses very difficult questions. At this stage, the Minister ought to explain why it has been so necessary to take so much conduct in the market place which is presently prohibited and put it into a favoured category. For that reason, in addition of course to the inclusion of the completely objectionable proposed new section 45 D, the Opposition will be opposing clause 23.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-Because of the shortness of time and in fairness to the Opposition my remarks will be brief. I want to mention 2 matters relating to proposed new section 45A. That proposed new section, as I see it, will confer very substantial benefits on small business throughout Australia. My concern, which I have drawn to the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, is to ensure that the full force and effect of the benefits intended by the Government to be conveyed to small business should be received fully in the smaller States and in isolated country areas. The Minister was kind enough in Hobart last week to spend some time with representatives of the business community of Hobart and the Hobart Chamber of Commerce. I have drawn to his attention- I have no doubt that it applies in Western Australia, in northern Queensland and probably in rural New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria- that there are areas in which there would not be a trade association with 50 individual members. It seems to me that those trade associations with more than 50 members are therefore given some sort of advantage or, to put it more correctly, are getting the full benefit under the provision of the legislation whereas those trade associations which may have only 10, 12 or 20 members will not qualify.

I ask the Minister, in the period between now and the Budget session, to monitor what is happening to see whether the full value and effect of this new section is getting through to small business particularly in Tasmania and in other isolated areas throughout Australia. My belief is that it is the wish of the Government that all sections of small business should receive the benefit of this proposed new section in the legislation. The figure of fifty has been arrived at arbitrarily. I say that it is too high. I ask the Minister to monitor the position during the next 2 months by whatever means is most appropriate to ensure that while some parts of Australia receive the full advantage which the Government intends them to receive other parts do not fail to receive the full advantage.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to speak in opposition to proposed new section 45D which deals with secondary boycotts and to agree with the remarks of my colleagues on this side of the chamber. Clause 23, which introduces this proposed new sub-section, would have to be eliminated, in order to have industrial peace in Australia. During the first and second reading stages of the debate, speakers from this side of the chamber stated that this Bill should go back to a House of Representatives select committee. The Government has given its decision. It will go all the way with this clause as it now stands. For the time being the Fraser Government may have backed down on its original controversial Bill to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. But the Bill which it now proposes to the chamber, namely, the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, is just as threatening and potentially damaging to the trade union movement as the former Bill ever was.

The trade union movement has given a lead in responsible moderation. It has bent over backwards to avoid a confrontation with the Government over its proposed industrial legislation. The unions are well aware that the economy is falling and failing and in particular does not need prolonged and bitter industrial warfare. Yet if confrontation is to be avoided and agreement reached, a stable and consistent Government position, worthy of union trust, is essential. So far the Fraser Government has proven itself to be treacherous and conniving and anything but deserving of the union movement’s trust.

Only last week, we had the example of Mr Fraser hedging on an agreement made between his Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions regarding the proposed amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. On Tuesday last, 5 senior Ministers of the Fraser Government- the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street; the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony; the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon; the Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott; and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Viner, agreed to accept the proposition put to them by the President of the ACTU, Mr Hawke, that the Industrial Relations Bureau be established without increasing existing powers and legal obligations under the Act, and that the National Labor Advisory Council be reconstituted on a statutory basis. In a Press statement made the same day, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations specifically said: … the Industrial Relations Bureau will have the same powers as the Arbitration Inspectorate, no more, no less, and those powers will be exercised according to the same processes as they have been until now.

Yet last Thursday, the Prime Minister made an attempt to subvert this agreement. He is quoted in the Press as having said that the Industrial Relations Bureau will be able independently to initiate prosecutions of unions and employers. This statement is in direct contradiction to the statement of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister was asked whether the Industrial Relations Bureau would be able to initiate prosecutions ‘off its own bat’ under the penal powers of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. His reply, as recorded in the Press, was:

It will be able to bring matters to the attention of the Industrial Court- of course it will- and the court makes its judgment. This is the whole point of it. It will be able to initiate action, of course it will, and the court will then make its judgment about what should be done. This is the whole thrust of that principle.

When asked again about whether the Industrial Relations Bureau would be able to bring prosecutions before the Industrial Court, the Prime Minister said:

Yes, that is the whole concept of the Industrial Relations Bureau. That concept is not altered at all.

Therefore, according to that statement, the IRB will be able to apply to the court to have penalties imposed on a union for a break of a no-strike order. Furthermore, the IRB will be able to apply for the insertion of a no-strike clause which would lead to penalties being imposed. These proposed functions of the IRB are in marked contrast to the present role of the Arbitration Inspectorate. Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act at present, the inspectorate is specifically prevented from applying to the Industrial Court to have’ penalties imposed on a union for breaching a no-strike order. It is little wonder then that the trade union movement does not trust the Fraser Government. Even when agreements are made there is no guarantee that the Government will not try to back out of them.

Viewed in this light, it is understandable that the trade union movement should be taking a no-compromise stance with the proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Act. These amendments, in the form of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1977, particularly section 45d of that Bill and other industrially significant amendments such as 4b (1) and (2), represent a despicable attempt to impose on the Australian trade union movement restrictions on the freedom to take industrial action, which has historically been the right of the Australian work force, and which is guaranteed by International Labour Organisations conventions, ratified by the Australian Government, to unions and associations of workers throughout the free world.

These proposed repressive measures prohibiting unionists from exercising legitimate activities on behalf of their members should be enough to make any thinking politician associated with the passing of this Bill and having the slightest shred of conscience, hang his head in shame. The clear intention of this Bill is to weaken the union movement, to bring the cudgel back in again to industrial relations policy and consequently to ensure fierce and prolonged industrial warfare in this country. It would not be uncharacteristic for the Fraser Government to be deliberately planning for the implementation of this Bill to provide the right pre-conditions for the introduction of the remainder of the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Bitter and widespread industrial warfare is the excuse the Government needs for implementing the remainder of its vicious attacks on trade unionism.

At first glance, the Trade Practices Amendment Bill gives the impression that only secondary boycotts by employees are to be prohibited, but this is misleading. In fact, and in law, proposed new section 45d would make any form of industrial activity illegal and punishable by massive fines on individual employees and unions, plus providing for separate actions in the courts for damages. There are important implications for the union movement of the introduction of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill.

Firstly, it will mean that no union or association will be permitted to take any legitimate action when the occasion demands, and all forms of strikes, boycotts, black bans or picket lines, will be forbidden, however justified or necessary they may be. Secondly, any attempt to resort to action which free trade unions all over the world are able to use, could expose individuals and unions to fines imposed by the Federal Court of Australia of up to $50,000 for individuals and up to $250,000 for unions. It should be pointed out here that a strike or go slow can be interpreted not as an act hindering or preventing supply but as a series of acts hindering or preventing supply and could therefore expose the unionists or union to several fines, each of up to $50,000 or $250,000 as the case may be.

Thirdly, there are to be no exceptions to the ban contained in section 45D and even if the action is on account of disputes over wages or conditions of work, including safety, it w3l still be banned. Fourthly, any individual, including employers, may apply for injunctions, even retrospectively, preventing action and union leaders or rank and file members could be gaoled if they attempted to defy the injunction, however unwarranted the case of the employer. Fifthly, apart from crippling fines for the action, unions and their members would face damages cases by which employers or individuals could recover what they claimed to have lost in the dispute.

These damages will include not only the immediate loss caused by the disruption to the corporation ‘s production or sales, but also other losses following as a consequence of that disruptionfor example, the cost of making alternative arrangements and the profit the corporation would have made on contracts it was unable to enter because of the disruption to supplies. Therefore, such damages awarded could be high, so high that even a wealthy union could be crippled and a struggling union totally wiped out.

Sixthly, if section 45D becomes law, not only will the rights of employee organisations to represent their members be at an end, but also the rights of all citizens to seek betterment of their way of life will be under threat. Therefore, it is imperative that this undemocratic and reactionary Bill be prevented from becoming law. If this Bill is allowed to be passed without revision, then unions will be returned to the intolerable position they occupied in mid- 19th century England when they could in theory organise but were denied the power to use their organisation. It will mean a return for the workers to the worst conditions of the 19th century where the edict ‘Work on our conditions or starve’ was the employers’ catchcry.

Quite simply the unions cannot afford to accept this legislation because it will mean a sellout of what the Australian trade union movement stands for and what it has fought for for over a century. By the ‘union movement’ I mean the vast majority of Australia’s 6 million work force. These are the people who will be affected by this new legislation and these are the people whose wages and living conditions will deteriorate as a result. The whole trade union movement- white collar, blue collar, right, left and centre- are affected by this Bill and all sections of the trade union movement are prepared to fight it to the end. If this Bill is passed, then Australia must prepare itself for a repeat of the Clarrie O’Shea fiasco -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

-Contrary to what the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon) has just said, I think it will be quite clear from one example I shall give why some sections of the union movement have been so strong in their views about this clause and, I believe, so totally irresponsible. A situation in South Australia recently was brought to my attention. Mr George Apap, the State Secretary of the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia, placed a ban on the delivery of goods to G. & R. Wills and Company Ltd, an Adelaide wholesale softgoods distributor. It would be fair so say that Mr Apap is not held in very high regard in my electorate where his industrial action has caused severe hardship to many wool growers on more than one occasion. An article in the Advertiser on 26 February and another on 30 April this year pointed out that a national ban had been placed on the Wills company apparently as a result of Mr Apap being unable to sign up to his union employees of the Wills company. This ban was on the delivery of goods to the Wills store. On 30 April the statement in the Advertiser read:

The State Secretary of the union, Mr G. Apap, said last night the ban had been imposed about two and a half months ago because the company had refused the union entry to its premises to recruit members. The extension of the ban would tie up billions of dollars worth of imports. Mr Apap said the union was demanding a national agreement for total union membership.

It was only some 10 days later that a letter appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser under the heading ‘Talks to Staff’ in the following terms: ‘Sir, we refer to the statement by Mr Apap of the Storemen and Packers Union, which appeared in the Advertiser on 30 April concerning G. & R. Wills and Company Limited. The staff associated with that company state that the comments of Mr Apap are completely false. It is absolutely untrue that the Storemen and Packers Union has been denied access. The staff have on 2 occasions been addressed on the premises by Mr Apap. The facts are that none wish to join his union as nearly all are members of an appropriate union. This letter is supported by the signatures of 1 12 employees. Signed T. C. Windsor, North Brighton.

It is quite clear that Mr Apap had, in fact, banned deliveries to the Wills company because he could not get people employed by that company who were apparently members of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the Federated Clerks Union and probably other unions to join his union. It appears that because they were happy as members of those unions and did not want to join his union he considered that he would attempt to put G. and R. Wills out of business and therefore run those unionists who refused to join his union out of a job. In doing so he totally misrepresented the situation to the Press. It is quite clear that the secondary boycott in this case was applied by refusing to allow suppliers to deliver goods to G. and R. Wills by asking members of his union employed by companies supplying Wills to refuse delivery of their goods.

This case would seem to fall within this proposed section of the Act. I therefore wholeheartedly support the Government’s action. One can immediately see why executive members of some unions have publicly come out against this proposed section when the likes of Mr Apap, by what appears to be totally irresponsible action, apparently cause completely false information to be published and, further, through bans, withhold supplies to a business just because Mr Apap was trying to convince members of one union to leave and join his union. He seems totally unconcerned at the effects it would have on the jobs of the unionists employed and seems more concerned about his own power in increasing the membership of his own union. I believe that this is a classic example of a secondary boycott which ought not be allowed to continue in the Australian business community. This situation has nothing to do with an employer-employee dispute. Industrial blackmail cannot be afforded in the Australian community any longer. I urge the Government to proceed with this proposed section and the Bill as fast as possible.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I was not surprised to hear the speech delivered by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). He has built up quite a reputation in the short time he has been here as being highly critical of trade unions and their actions.

Mr Young:

– That is why Geoff Giles is going to take his seat.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I think he is here only temporarily. I am very disappointed that he should speak in such a disparaging fashion about one of nature’s gentlemen, that is, Mr George Apap, the Secretary of the Storemen and Packers Union in his own State. I oppose the whole of clause 23 of the Bill, particularly for the reasons mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon). This clause proposes the inclusion in trade practices legislation of a clause that rightfully should belong in industrial legislation. It would be a different matter if this country had no industrial legislation but it has. It has a substantial Conciliation and Arbitration Act which is designed, as the preamble says, to settle industrial disputes.

This is clearly an industrial matter. A simple reading of the clause will indicate that it is aimed at trade unions, although it does not use those words, and at members of them. It is now for the first time aimed at persons. It has a wider application than to members of trade unions. This appears in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill.

It is intended to be included in the Trade Practices Act. I oppose it. I should have opposed it just as vigorously if an attempt had been made to include it in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It seems to me manifestly misleading to drop this provision right in the middle of the Trade Practices Bill when it has nothing to do with trade practices.

Mr Shipton:
Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable gentleman says ‘rubbish’. I suppose that almost any action taken in the community can affect trade practices and could therefore be scooped in. That was not the original purpose of the legislation. It was not the intention with which it was originally introduced. It was introduced to prevent malpractices by owners of businesses and distortion of market effects by them and to protect small traders and consumers. Certainly not at any time was it intended that this Bill should be used for the misuse to which it is now being put. For the benefit of the Committee, I quote the proposed section 45D ( 5 ):

If two or more persons (in this sub-section referred to as the ‘participants ‘) each of whom is a member or officer of the same organization of employees (being an organization that exists or is carried on for the purpose, or for the purposes that include the purpose, of furthering the interests of its members in relation to their employment)-

In other words, a trade union: . . . conduct in concert with one another, whether or not the conduct is also engaged in in concert with other persons, the organization shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to engage in that conduct in concert with the participants, and so to engage in that conduct for the purpose or purposes for which that conduct is engaged in by the participants, unless the organization establishes that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the participants from engaging in that conduct.

I put it to the Minister on reading that clause that he has spread a very wide net. The whole of the Government’s industrial legislation sets about protecting scabs, pimps and free loaders. He is protecting them again in this provision. He is protecting the agent provocateur who can smash a union. The penalty for a union which is found guilty of such an act is $250,000. 1 give the Minister an example. We will suppose that 2 people working in the Ford Motor Company in Geelong, members of the Vehicle Builders Union, have, for reasons good or bad, taken a dislike to the union itself and the officers of the union. If those 2 people- only a minimum of two is needed- decide to engage in activities in that factory that disrupt the Ford company and cause it to be inconvenienced, they are doing what subsection (5) says they must not do. The union has no control over them. I repeat the relevant sentence: … the organisation shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to engage in that conduct in concert with the participants . . .

The organisation does not have to be involvedonly 2 members of it can cause disruption in a plant- and the organisation is then deemed to be guilty in participating in the same way as the people in the plant. If the union is found guilty as it must be under this section of the Act, it is then fined $250,000.

It does not take a very strong imagination to work out what sort of weapon is being given to some people who would set out to destroy their union. The Government is giving them the ultimate weapon in the penalty it is providing in the way in which that proposed section is written. This legislation must be the worst drafted piece of legislation that has ever come into this chamber. This Bill is about the fourth attempt that the Government has had at drafting it. It has fouled up 3 attempts. No sooner does the fourth one hit the table then we have about 12 pages of amendments to it. What a great piece of legislation! Even if this is the fourth attempt at writing section 45D to try to accommodate people, the Government has mucked up this one as well. It has made this one worse than the ones which preceded it. Certainly, it has taken out the penalties of $50,000 for individuals but it has left in the penalty for the unions of $250,000. It has left it wide open for agent provocateurs to bring down a union. The Government does not have to do anything except get a couple of blokes a job in the factory, agitate them and stir them to engage in activities described in the Bill. Who is guilty? It is not the employees, the members or the persons; it is the organisation.

The Government now has another piece of legislation in this Parliament which purports to look after the interests of individual unionists and protect them from their big strong union bosses. That piece of legislation prevents a union executive or its officers taking punitive or disciplinary action against its own members. Can the Minister not see the contradiction? In this piece of legislation, he joins the organisation with the actions of the employees. That piece of legislation states: . . . unless the organization establishes that it took all reasonable steps . . .

What does that mean? Do you write the employees a letter and tell them not to engage in that sort of activity?

Consideration interrupted.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 10 March, I shall report progress.

The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly-

page 1860

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

-I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Howard:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1860

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The last part of that section states: . . . unless the organization establishes that it took all reasonable steps . . .

As I said, what are ‘reasonable steps’? Does one write a letter to those malcontents in the factory and tell them that they must not engage in that sort of activity? Would that be accepted as ‘having taken all reasonable steps ‘? Is an official sent to the factory to speak to the people there? If the official tries to take any disciplinary action against those people under another piece of legislation before this House the organisation is still at fault and the individual is protected.

It is for those reasons and a number of others that we oppose this legislation. For example, we oppose the changing in this draft of the legislation of the word ‘employees’ to ‘person’ in the first sentence of proposed section 45D. Again we can have all sorts of examples of people who are not necessarily employees. I think this was mentioned earlier in the House today during the second reading stage. For example, take a company sand mining on Fraser Island. Let us suppose that there were conservationists in the area who did not believe that that company should be mining for sand on that Island and who decided to sit in front of the machines that were going to excavate the sand from the Island. Under this legislation, those people would be guilty. They are not employees; they are not engaged in any secondary boycott. But that is how broad the legislation is. As I said, this is the fourth go that the Government has had at trying to get this thing right. If it were to take my advice- and frankly it could not find sounder advice in the whole of Australia- it would not persist with trying to patch up this shoddy looking piece of legislation but would withdraw it and consign it to the waste paper basket, the proper place for it.

There is great concern not only on my part but on the part of the trade union movement about this legislation because it does infringe upon the rights of working people in this country and other countries- rights that were fought for 100 and more years ago; rights that people believe are entrenched. They do have the right to withdraw their labour. As the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) was trying to put to us, they do have the right to decide whether they shall work with people who are free-loading on them. They do have the right to decide whether they will work with people who are known as scabs. I do not know all of the details of the case which the honourable member for Barker mentioned but it seems pretty clear to me that the people involved were in the wrong union. They had been body snatched by another union. All that George Apap wanted was to bring them into his loving embrace, to bring them back to the fold of the Storemen and Packers Union where they could probably get better protection and better service. It was in the interests of the employees to be members of the Storemen and Packers Union. That must be axiomatic, even to the honourable member for Barker. The legislation is bad. It is so bad that one could not even suggest an amendment to it. The only thing that should happen to it is for it to be given a decent burial.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-We have just had an amusing act by the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), the Houses’ newest grandfather. I am afraid that it did not deserve any encore and it did not bring down any curtain. I shall defer to the Opposition and be brief in talking about proposed section 45D. This is not aimed at trade unionists; it is aimed at irresponsible trade unionists and irresponsible trade union activity that is against the public interest. The honourable member for Burke made a passionate plea about entrenched rights and the infringement of entrenched rights by this proposed section. This legislation does no such thing. The honourable member made no complaint about the common law of conspiracy or the industrial torts of intimidation or inducing a breach of contract. Nor did he refer to the Commonwealth Crimes Act which has provisions concerning obstructing or hindering the performances of services- not dissimilar provisions in this respect- and provisions of legislation and common law that apply to boycott activity.

I think that the Government has been very sensible and has acceded to complaints from the trade union movement that earlier drafts were wider than a secondary boycott. It has confined this section in this new definition to the dominant purpose needing to be that of the secondary boycott. In so doing, there is an implication, at first reading, that in fact a primary boycott might be authorised. But that is not so because I take it that this section is solely for the purpose of the Trade Practices Act. It is a section of trade practices law. It is only a definition section. There is no implication in it that a primary boycott is legal. I wish to make that point. I assume that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) agrees with that statement. Similarly, I believe that its purpose is related solely to trade practices law and has no effect on those laws that I previously pointed out to the honourable member for Burke that applied to abuses and breaches of law by irresponsible trade unionists, namely, the common law of conspiracy, provisions of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, industrial torts of intimidation and inducing breach of contract In deference to the Opposition, I conclude my remarks at this stage.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I rise merely on a point of procedure because the Government has informed us that come hell or high water we have to finish this very important piece of legislation this evening. I can understand the Government’s dilemma but, as one of the members of this Parliament who has some pride in serving here and as one of the members of the Parliament who served on the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System, I think that what is happening this evening is an absolute disgrace. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard), unbeknown to any honourable member who sits behind him, has moved 4’/4 pages of amendments.

When I was 16 years of age I went to the first meeting in my life that could or perhaps should have changed the rules of the organisation of which I was a member. To change one word, to change a paragraph, to write in a new rule, took considerable discussion and quite a deal of time. We are in the national Parliament of Australia. Because proposed section 45D dominates the influence of the Trade Practices Bill in this House, as I said last night, we have allowed ourselves to be captured in the net of discussing not only the impact of proposed section 45D, but the most important clause that I think I have ever seen discussed in the Committee stage of any Bill. We have before us 4!£ pages of amendments moved by the Minister.

I do not suggest that in any way the Minister is trying to hide the ramifications of any of the minor alterations that may have taken place in those amendments but I do think that we ought to be self-critical about the way in which this Bill is being handled. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) gave us a 10 minute diatribe about one industrial dispute and for that we are supposed to believe that we are changing the laws of Australia to bring about enormous industrial disruption. There is no recipe in the battle between labour and capital. All we can do is try to bring about some sort of peaceful settlement to those disputes. Using the national Parliament to try to take points on George Apap, or George Polites, or Bob Hawke or whoever else it might be, does not settle a thing outside this Parliament. I must say on behalf of the Opposition that of course this Bill will go through. The numbers are on the other side of the chamber. Of course the laws will be written but we will have to say that we were members of the Parliament that wrote those laws and we will have to be held responsible for the impact and the effect of the laws that we have written. I find it extremely difficult- I must be perfectly honest about it- to follow the concept of the impact of the trade practices law as it was, as it was re-written in the Bill presented in December, as it is re-written again in the Bill now being considered and as it will be re-written by the amendments that were given to us this afternoon.

I do not think anyone understands the provisions easily. I do not think it does us any credit to treat the Bill in the way it is being treatedsaying that this Bill must become law tonight. The only people who will be able to tell us next week about the impact of these laws are people outside the Parliament, the professionals who will sit down as from tonight to try to advise people as to what it all means. Frankly, no member of Parliament will be in a position to give some sort of generalised attitude as to what has taken place tonight. The Opposition does not want to be held responsible for what is occurring. There are other speakers on this side of the chamber who will reflect their views about what is likely to occur. I intend to do that also on some specific areas of the Bill. In terms of how the Parliament operates as a Committee of the Whole in dealing with the Committee stage it is insufficient in dealing with the complexities of legislation. Far earlier than now we ought to have adopted the suggestions of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System to have a legislative procedure in the Committee stage so that people would understand the impact of these things. We have not adopted this course and I would not be surprised if we are not making ourselves a laughing stock in the view of the professional people around Australia.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I again speak opposing the proposed new section 45d of the Trade Practices Act dealing with secondary boycotts. If this Bill is passed Australia must prepare itself for a repeat of the Clarrie O’Shea fiasco because the gaoling of a unionist and its resultant rolling national strikes are the most likely consequences of the reintroduction of the regressive and provocative penal clauses. Honourable members may recall that on that occasion in 1969 the wheels of industry came to a halt as workers in their thousands stopped work in protest at the gaoling of a fellow unionist. Ever since then the employers have learned the lesson that these sorts of harsh measures just do not work. Evidently the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has not learned this lesson. The Government seems to be counting on low level business activity and high unemployment to have sapped the strength of the union movement. But I think this may prove to be a gross miscalculation by the Prime Minister and his Government. The trade union movement is still very strong and well prepared to fight if the penal powers are revived. The unions do not want a confrontation but if the Prime Minister continues to push the unions into a corner by

E passing this blatant anti-union legislation he will ave a fight on his hands and the Australian people, on the whole, will suffer as a result.

By introducing the Trade Practices Amendment Bill the Fraser Government is making a deliberate attempt to do the unthinkable in this democracy; that is, to prevent opposition from any section of society opposed to this Government and its big business backers. This Bill demonstrates without any doubt the single minded obsession of the Fraser Government with the question of strikes and its inability to find any suitable means of living with them. Difference of opinion is a healthy sign of democracy being alive and well but here in Australia Malcolm Fraser wants to install his own brand of fascism -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! ‘The Right Honourable the Prime Minister’ is the accepted term.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I withdraw that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will be guided by your wisdom. The Prime Minister will squash all dissent, especially that arising from the workers. He believes that life was meant to be hard for the workers and that they just have to accept that. If they do not the Prime Minister proposes to force them to accept it. I think the Prime Minister, the narrow minded authoritarian and ‘throwback’ from the last century, is soon in for the biggest surprise of his life. Remarkably, despite this extreme provocation by the Prime Minister and his Government, the trade unions have displayed commendable restraint. Proof of this is revealed in their record over recent months of containing something like 95 per cent of wage increases in national wage decisions and of keeping the level of industrial disputes in January the lowest for 8 years.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I ask the honourable member for Sydney to try to tie his remarks to clause 23, which is under consideration.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Examples of this deliberate and severe provocation of the trade union movement by the Fraser Government, such as in relation to section 45d of the Trade Practices Act, since its election to office in 1975 are prolific. One example which immediately comes to mind is the Government’s handling of wage indexation. This important antiinflationary initiative of the Labor Government, which had the full support of the union movement, has been progressively eroded by the Fraser Government. The unions have tolerated this despite the Prime Minister’s specific promise to maintain indexation. The unions have also tolerated a substantial shift of national income from labour to the profits of private companies. Other examples of union provocation have been: The Fraser Government’s assault on the trade union training scheme; its interference with union elections; and its contemptible disregard for the ever increasing number of unemployed. But rather than ease up on the unions the Fraser Government has chosen to step up its harassment of them. So far the Prime Minister has been met only with co-operation or at times, mild protest. But the trade union movement’s tolerance is now at its limit and these proposed legislative assaults by the Government on the sources of union power just cannot and will not be overlooked.

It is obvious that the Government lacks popular support for its hard line on the unions, otherwise it would not be trying so desperately hard to promote industrial unrest. The Government seems to believe that if it can cause widespread industrial action it will then have the justification for introducing its powerful anti-union weaponry. This logic tends to explain the authoritarian role played by the Government in the recent Victorian oil dispute and the air traffic controllers strike. It is disgraceful to think that a government would go to this extent to influence public opinion on its policies. One wonders just ow far the Fraser Government is prepared to go to get its way.

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

– I think this is an appropriate time for me to reply to some of the allegations that have been made about the motives of the Government in including in this Bill proposed new section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. I know that no argument that I will be able to adduce in the few moments I intend to take tonight will be sufficient to persuade any member of the Opposition that it is appropriate to include a clause of this nature in a trade practices Bill, or indeed that this provision is other than a deliberate attempt by the Government to discriminate against the trade union movement. But I believe, and I know that the belief is shared in the Government ranks, that this legislation is not designed against the trade union movement. No political party in Australia, be it on our side of politics or on the Australian Labor Party’s side, can gain any profit from deliberately confronting any section of the Australian community, be that the trade union movement, the farmers, the industrialists of Australia or whatever the case may be.

The motives of the Government are to bring into the trade practices legislation the concept that where conduct having certain consequences is engaged in, that conduct should attract the same consequences irrespective of who engages in it. Earlier this evening I explained the reasons why the Government proposes to extend the operation of the Trade Practices Act to its own commercial activities. We shall do that because we believe it to be demonstrably unfair to the private sector of the Australian community to impose the elaborate paraphenalia of the Trade Practices Act upon the private sector but at the same time to say that the Government is a special case. The same concept applies in respect of proposed section 45D. Having read some of the literature that has been produced about this proposed section and having listened to some of the speeches that have been made tonightsome, if I may say so, were more thoughtful than others- one would imagine that what the Government was about through this legislation was to discriminate in favour of all sections of the community against the trade union movement.

The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) spoke about the potential penalities under the Act. Of course, as the honourable gentleman knows, those penalties apply at the present time in respect of companies. Has the honourable gentleman forgotten that only two or three weeks ago a company in one of the States of Australia was fined because it had misled some people abouts the benefits that might be obtained if people entered into certain contractural arrangements with that company. There was no evidence that people had suffered any damage. There was no evidence that the deception was deliberate. Yet the consequences of the Act applied. I am putting to the Committee the very simple proposition that if it is fair in circumstances such as that that the legislation apply, I think it is fair that the type of provision that is involved in proposed section 45D should also apply-

Certainly this is the fourth version of proposed section 45D. I make no apologies for that. I do not think that reflects discredit upon the Government. I think it indicates that the Government has been prepared to listen to the propositions that have been put to it. I and people in my Department have spent a considerable amount of time discussing this legislation with representatives of the trade union movement. We have not been able to reach agreement on the fundamental proposition but I have been persuaded by a number of the arguments that have been put to me. The changes that were made several weeks ago when we decided to delete from the legislation penalties against individuals and we decided to restrict the right of civil action against individuals to a very limited number of cases did represent major changes by the Government to the legislation. They were, in the main, as a result of representations that we had received from the trade union movement.

In terms of one of the amendments which is now before the Committee- amendment No. 17 -we have provided yet another amendment which makes it perfectly clear that if the conduct in question is the type of” conduct excluded by the operation of sub-section (3) of proposed section 45D that exclusion should cover the conduct of a trade union and trade union officials just as it covers the conduct of individual trade unionists. In other words, if one is going to exempt the conduct one ought to exempt whoever engages in the conduct and one ought not to discriminate between those whom one exempts in respect of that conduct. The clause as it now stands more tightly defines the concept of a secondary boycott. It certainly does provide that a union is deemed to be liable for the acts of the members of an organisation unless the union establishes that it has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the boycott.

The honourable member for Burke asked me in effect to give some idea of what constitutes a reasonable step. I cannot do that. Precisely why expressions such as ‘reasonable steps’ are inserted in legislation is because that is a matter for the courts to determine, just as it is not possible for me to give an exhaustive definition of what amounts to anti-competitive conduct by companies and what amounts to exclusive dealings by companies. I cannot give any ironclad definition of that. All I can say is that the words carry an ordinary meaning that is understood by all of us and that ultimately it is going to be a matter for the courts to interpret.

After very considerable thought and consideration by the Government, this clause does represent in the view of the Government an important addition to the trade practices legislation. It is an addition that has been thought about. It is an addition that is not designed to affect the trade union movement. It is not aimed at the trade union movement. The proposition that in some way the total effect of this legislation represents discrimination against the trade union movement to the advantage of private enterprise in Australian society is, in my view, a wholly unfounded proposition. It is a nonsense to suggest, as some members of the Opposition have argued during the course of today’s debate, that in some way the Government is now in the process of winding down restrictions that ought to exist on improper commercial conduct and winding them up in respect of trade union conduct.

Before I conclude my remarks on this proposed section I would like to respond to some remarks made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). They have nothing whatever to do with proposed section 45D, but they have something to do with another part of proposed section 45. The honourable member dealt with the new provision in the Bill which is designed, as he said, to assist small business and which provides for a more liberal treatment of recommended price lists than exists under the present legislation. He made the point that the threshold of 50 members of a trade association might be one that worked to the disadvantage of trade associations in the smaller States. The honourable member made the very valid point that, if the Government wishes to confer an advantage of this nature on small business, then as far as possible that advantage should be equally available throughout Australia and the drawing up of the provision should not be such as to provide for an advantage being more readily available in, say, Sydney than in Perth or Hobart. There are some difficulties, which I have explained to the honourable member, about discriminating as between numbers in the trade associations between the States. But I indicate to the honourable gentleman that I will ask the Commission to monitor the operation of this provision so that after a period- I hope a reasonably short period- one can gain some idea as to whether it has in fact worked or whether the proposed benefits of the provision have not worked to the advantage of small business throughout Australia.

I should also mention that earlier I moved all of the amendments standing in the Government’s name in respect of clause 23 and I did explain the basis of amendment No. 9. I should briefly indicate to the Committee the basis of the other amendments. Amendment No. 10 merely corrects a technical error. The wrong sub-section had been referred to. Amendment No. 11 is an amendment of some significance. It removes a restriction upon joint venturers marketing separately. What the Government has done by this amendment is to create a situation in which the treatment to be afforded to joint venture arrangements operates in respect of the sale of the product of the joint venture when the sale is done separately by the parties to the joint venture. That is not an unusual situation. It is not an amendment that will lead to the type of price fixing arrangements that are prohibited in other sections of the Act. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that if the products of the joint venture are separately sold by the parties to the joint venture the type of treatment that is accorded in other parts of the section to the joint venture also will apply in respect of that conduct.

Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that proposed section 45A ( 1 ) applies irrespective of any market sharing agreement involving the parties. Amendment No. 13 introduces into this particular section the concept of aggregation which I explained earlier in respect of another section. Amendment No. 14 also corrects a minor error where the wrong sub-section was referred to. Amendment No. 15 prevents proposed section 45B (5) affecting arrangements between related bodies corporate which might be treated as a matter not invoking public law. Amendment No. 16 is to the same effect as that proposed under amending clause 10 which I have mentioned earlier.

Amendment No. 17 is the amendment to proposed section 45D(3) which I Have explained earlier in these remarks. This amendment extends to organisations of employees the protection afforded to individual employees’ under section 45D (3) proposed in the Bill and in the circumstances and upon the basis that I have earlier explained in these remarks. Amendment No. 18 makes proposed section 47(3) a more effective mirror of proposed section 47 (2) thereby avoiding accidental inferences from the omission of these words. Amendment No. 19 deals with the concept of aggregation so far as it relates to exclusive dealings.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I just want to make a few points-

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 75

NOES: 29

Majority 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 69

NOES: 29

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put-

That the clause, as amended, be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 63

NOES: 29

Majority…… 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) put:

That the Deputy Chairman do now leave the chair and report progress.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 28

NOES: 62

Majority…… 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Clause 24.

Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) the words ‘or facilities’.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The amendment effected by clause 24 is relatively minor, but honourable members can be thankful that we have a section of the Act left to amend. This Government proposed to repeal section 49 of the Act in the December legislative proposals. The fact that it is not now proposed to do so is due solely to the efforts of the Opposition and the lobbying efforts of some of the small business organisations outside the Parliament. How shameful it was that in that defence of section 49 and in that defence of the price discrimination laws of this country we were not assisted by one Government member in the debate earlier this year. Not one Government member was prepared to come forward and say that the very thin reasoning of the Swanson Committee was not good enough to do away with a provision which had been in force for a little more than 2 years and which the Trade Practices Commission itself, in commenting on the Swanson Committee report recommendations, indicated had not been given enough trial.

Honourable members on this side of the chamber are aware of the difficulties in working out price discrimination laws, but they have advantages in the relatively medium term in restructuring the Australian economy on a more soundly competitive basis. What we on this side of the chamber stood opposed to was the suggestion that suppliers ought to stand over small businessmen or to supply bigger organisations on a basis that was not available to small businesses such as the corner store. How often do we hear about small business from Government members? Yet, when Government members have the chance to stand up for small business and defend it, when they have the chance to defend small businessmen who work in their businesses and who risk their capital, Government members are curiously silent. A thread that runs through the whole of this Bill is the assumption that big business is to be cosseted and looked after at every turn. When it came to the small business organisation, it was not to be given the protection of the law.

The law which was erected relatively recently to defend the small business organisation from the predatory acts and the discriminatory behaviour of big business was to be repealed. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) has had second thoughts about it. I should like to recall to him the words that he threw back at us in February about what an obstruction this had been to the development of price flexibility in the Australian economy. He has had to eat those words. In his very brief and very limited speech in introducing this Bill he said -

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– You will be made to eat crow.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member for Darling Downs is notorious in this chamber for standing up for cartels and for opposing the interests of small businessmen throughout Australia. I remember that the same guffawing from the same quarters joined the weak defence of the proposal to repeal section 49. Now that it has been saved, I should like to say that it has been saved because of the efforts of the Opposition. The Minister would do well to reflect on the fact that this proposition has been saved because of the efforts of the Opposition. We are delighted to see that it remains in the Act. The amendments are minor, but they will ensure at least that the provision remains and that it works. As I said, that is largely as a result of the efforts of the Opposition, particularly the efforts of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young).

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

– I move amendment No. 23:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:- “24. Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting in paragraph (b) of sub-section ( 1 ), after the word ‘given’, the words ‘or allowed’;

by omitting from paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (I ) the words ‘or facilities’; and

by inserting before the words ‘is likely to have’ the words ‘has or’.

The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) has been kind enough to say that this is a minor amendment. It is true, as the honourable member for Grayndler said, that the Government did change its mind about repealing section 49. 1 do not think governments lose credit for occasionally changing their minds. There are difficulties of interpretation with section 49. They will remain. One of the actions the Government will be taking is to look very carefully over the next few months at the operation of section 49 on the basis that, if there is a way in which some of the difficulties of this section can be removed whilst still preserving its benefits, it might be possible to do that at some future stage. I am pleased to remind the honourable member for Grayndler that this Bill contains other sections which this Government has introduced and which provide additional or further benefits to small business.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– Like the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam), I think it is of great significance that this Government, which came to power on the wave of being generous to business, understanding business and representing business, has been forced to retain section 49, dealing with price discrimination, at the behest, perseverence and representation of the Australian Labor Party. The small business people who came to Canberra were duped into believing that it was not necessary to give evidence to the Swanson Committee in relation to consolidating section 49 of the Act. They then found that the Swanson Committee, without any representation from the people who were affected, recommended to the Government the deletion of section 49. The Government, having a heart much closer to the Swanson Committee than to the people who were affected, carried out the views of the Swanson Committee. It was left to this side of the chamber- it just shows the force occasionally of 36 votes to 91 votes- to convince the Government, not on the most important aspects of the Bill, but that section 49 and the protection given by it to the small business people ought to remain. It has been retained as a result of the representations and perseverence of the Australian Labor Party.

Let me refer to the matter raised by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who referred to trade associations with fewer than 50 members. Unfortunately this Parliament has been somewhat shocked by the shabby treatment this Bill is receiving from the Government. Knowing the mentality of most honourable members opposite I can understand that they would rather go home to bed than consider the laws being written by them. Nevertheless, this may be another case where the Government has ignored the role of the small business person. The Minister said in his second reading speech that it was the managerial back-up, so called, that was lacking in small business which encouraged the Government to write in the provision relating to trade associations of 50 or more members. However, it ignored the people who may belong to associations of 50 or more people and ignored the people in associations which did not have that number. Consider the liquor trades and the major retail stores. I do not know whether David Jones Ltd has lack of managerial back up or whether the Australian Hotels Association has lack of managerial back up, but this is a provision which can be used against the smaller business person. It has been used against him in the past prior to the operation of the Act and it will be used against him again. The Government has ignored this. It does not want the measure exposed and that is why it has moved the gag on this Bill. The Opposition supports section 49 as it stands. It is in accordance with our representations to the Parliament. It has been successful. Unfortunately the Government has ignored the representations on many other sections of the Act but, nevertheless, the Australian Labor Party was successful with this section.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25.

Section 50 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted-

“50.(1) ….

“(3) A reference in this section to controlling or dominating a market for goods or services shall be construed as a reference to controlling or dominating such a market either as a supplier or as an acquirer of goods or services in that market. “(4) Where-

  1. a corporation has entered into a contract to acquire shares in the capital, or assets, of a body corporate;
  2. b) the contract is subject to a condition that the contract will not come into force unless and until the corporation has been granted an authorization to acquire the shares or assets; and
  3. the corporation applied for the grant of such an authorization before the expiration of 14 days after the contract was entered into, the acquisition of the shares or assets shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as having taken place in pursuance of the contract before-
  4. the application for the authorization is disposed of; or
  5. e ) the contract ceases to be subject to the condition, whichever first happens. “(5) For the purposes of sub-section (4), an application for an authorization shall be taken to be disposed of-
  6. in a case to which paragraph (b) of this sub-section does not apply- at the expiration of 14 days after the period in which an application may be made to the Tribunal for a review of the determination by the Commission of the application for the authorization; or
  7. if an application is made to the Tribunal for a review of the determination by the Commission of the application for the authorization- at the expiration of 14 days after the date of the making by the Tribunal of a determination of the review. “.
Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– Clauses 25 of the Bill deals with mergers and is one of the very important provisions. The effect of the legislation proposed by the Government is that in future the surveillance by the Trade Practices Commission of mergers will exist only in respect of those mergers which involve companies already in a monopoly position or companies which will as a result of the merger be in a monopoly position. I make no secret of the fact that the Government believes that this will substantially reduce the coverage of merger activities in Australia by the Trade Practices Act. This is a quite deliberate move on the part of the Government; there is nothing indirect about it. The Government has formed the very strong view that the appropriate merger provision in the Australian trade practices legislation is a merger provision which looks at the concentration of the industry and at the monopoly situation and not a merger provision which is as all-embracing and has such a widespread effect as the present merger provision. So the effect of the changes will in the view of the Government certainly reduce the degree to which it is necessary at present to seek clearance and authorisation of mergers. Because of the changes made to section 50, the procedure of clearance is being removed from the Act altogether.

The amendments before the Committee are subsidiary to the main purpose of the changes embodied in this Bill and I shall briefly explain what is involved in the 3 amendments. There is a proviso which makes it very clear that the merger provision does not catch a situation which simply involves a change of ownership due to a reorganisation of a group of related companies. I would have thought that this was an amendment which would commend itself to all honourable members. If such an amendment is not made then a reorganisation involving the creation of a new holding company for a group which already controls or dominates the market would be caught. In substance, in that situation there is no real change of ownership but really a change in identity of the company which may occupy the monopoly position.

The second change introduces into proposed new section 50 a special definition of ‘market’ for the purposes only of that section. The amendment says in effect that for the purposes of the merger provision of the Act a market is a substantial market in Australia or in a State of Australia. The purpose of that is to remove as far as it is possible to do so the situation where a merger which in its totality ought not to be caught by the provisions of the legislation may be caught by the provisions of the legislation simply because the target company happens to be in a monopoly position in an extremely small market, a market that cannot be regarded on any reasonable test as a substantial one. The reason we have expressly provided that it must be a substantial market in Australia or in a State of Australia is to pay special regard to the situation of the less populous States. It is true that a market which is not substantial by Australian standards may be substantial in terms of the size of markets in Tasmania, South Australia or other States.

The third and relatively minor change is consistent with the change that has been made to section 46, the monopoly provision. It makes it clear that a monopoly which is spoken of in proposed new section 50 is a monopoly either as a supplier or as an acquirer. I believe that the right balance has been struck in the merger provision. I say plainly and deliberately that it is the intention of the Government to reduce substantially the degree of merger control. We believe that a market the size of Australia does not warrant the coverage of merger activity which is currently involved under the present Act. However, we believe that some degree of surveillance should be retained to avoid undue concentration of industry and that the balance which is now struck by the proposed new section 50 achieves that objective and gives to the Act a far more realistic and far more suitable merger provision.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles )- Does the Minister seek leave to move the 3 amendments together?

Mr HOWARD:

-I do.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– No. They will be done one at a time.

Mr HOWARD:

– I move amendment 24:

Omit proposed sub-section (3), substitute the following sub-section:- ‘ “(3) In this sectionfa) a reference to a market for goods or services shall be construed as a reference to a substantial market for goods or services in Australia or in a State; and

b ) a reference to controlling or dominating a market for goods or services shall be construed as a reference to controlling or dominating such a market either as a supplier or as an acquirer of goods or services in that market.”.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Amendment 24 is quite objectionable. It adds to proposed new section 50 a definition of ‘market’ which will render the already weakened section 50 as proposed by the Government quite nugatory. The amendment proposes to insert the following new sub-section (3):

  1. a reference to a market for goods or services shall be construed as a reference to a substantial market for goods or services in Australia or in a State;

It is a most peculiar provision to suggest that it has to be a substantial market. It is the only area in which the legislation speaks of the size of a market. In every other instance it is left to the

Commission or the courts to determine what is a market. The word ‘substantial’ is not very helpful, particularly when it is followed by the words ‘in Australia or in a State’, because after all a suggestion that a market cannot cover more than one State or parts of Australia different from States would not be one readily recognisable by the Commission. The word ‘substantial’ too is not simply a word that relates to the geographic spread of a market but refers particularly to now we quantify a market by reference to products or services. So in adding this suggestion that there must be a substantial market, the Government has introduced into the legislation a very unusual provision. I think it is fair to say, given the innate conservatism of courts in Australia that they will assume that the Parliament, if it agrees to the insertion of these words has meant that the Commission, or indeed the court itself, is not at liberty to erect in its own mind a view of the market which is anything other than very large indeed.

The proposed new section 50 and the test that the Government is now proposing to apply to mergers that they must offend before they are prohibited by this Act are very different from the present arrangement. At the moment, a company is prevented from acquiring another company or its assets if the effect is substantially to lessen competition in the market for goods and services. That is the test which the Government has used in its new section 45 ( 1 ). It is the test that the Government found attractive when it sought to rationalise the so-called multiplicity of tests of competitive effect which obtained in the 1974 Act. If one is looking for a common denominator which, whilst not being pitched too low, might at least have some real guts and meaning to it the words ‘substantially lessening competition’ are fairly unexceptionable. But, on this occasion, in relation to mergers the Government has moved out those words and substituted a much stricter test which must be met before the conduct is found offensive. A company must control or dominate a market for goods or services as a result of its activities. It must control or dominate not just any market but, in the terms of the amendment which the Minister has just moved, it has to be a substantial market. The statute does not provide any other assistance to the courts or the Commission about what constitutes a substantial market.

Taken in association with the suggestion that it must control or dominate the market there will be so few companies caught by this new provision. What justification does the Government have for introducing such a different test in relation to mergers to that which has applied for a relatively short time? Is it because it has been able to determine that the kinds of mergers for which the Commission has denied authorisation in the past because they have offended section 50 of the existing Act ought to proceed? Is it because the numbers of specific instances which are set out in the decisions of the Commission are in some way offensive to them. In so many goods and services, whether it be the communication of ideas by the takeover of country radio stations and country newspapers by big monopolies or in relation to the milling capacity of sugar mills in concentrated areas of Queensland, in all these significant areas of the economy, the Commission has stood fast against encroaching monopoly which has been attempted to be effected through mergers which have offended the existing section 50 of the Act.

If this is the sort of behaviour the Government wishes to see through why does it not say so? Are its supporters aware that this is the kind of behaviour which will now almost certainly be permitted if the amendment goes through? It seems to me that the Government certainly would not be able to come out and argue this in public. The Swanson Committee does not. When the Swanson Committee talked about the merger provisions of the existing Act it wanted to introduce a threshold test. That suggestion was found attractive by the Government. It introduced it in its December legislative proposal when it used a dollar figure in relation to which there would be a rough test whether the merger offended and whether it attracted the attention of the Act. In this case the Government has moved right away from that proposal. It has moved to a concept which is even more foreign to what I believe is the basis upon which competition laws operate in every country in the world. They do not look simply at mergers which would result in control or domination of a market. They talk about substantially lessening competition and that kind of test already exists in the present section. For that reason we find the proposed amendment quite offensive.

Indeed, the arguments put forward in the Swanson Committee report as to the satisfactory nature or otherwise of the existing merger provisions were not found to be attractive by the Trade Practices Commission. Admittedly the Commission was speaking about the threshold test proposed by the Swanson Committee. Regrettably we have not had the opportunity to have expert commentary from the Commission on the Government’s proposals but one can guess that it would at least subscribe to the same views in relation to that that it took in relation to the proposed insertion of a threshold test. In its comments which were released for public discussion the Commission said that there may be real doubts whether a threshold system could be satisfactorily grafted on to an Act at all, given that the approach of the Act- that is the 1974 Act- was to state principles of general application and to place emphasis on competition.

The Minister might well be able to say that he stated in his new proposed section 50 a principle of general application but it certainly does not mention competition anywhere; the existing section 50 does. Existing section 50 applies a test of substantially lessening competition. That would be a test consistent with everything that we know about what tends to be a monopoly and with everything that we apply as a test to the behaviour of companies in relation to so many other practices. Why should companies be able to achieve by mergers that which they are unable to achieve by agreements? If the effect of an agreement were not to control or to dominate a market, it would, in many instances, still be found to be grossly anti-competitive and to contain no public benefit whatsoever, let alone one that would outweigh the supposed anti-competitive effect. But because in this case companies will be able to structure arrangements in such a way, they will be able, by effecting what might seem to be a technical merger for the purposes of section 50- that is, by acquiring shares or assets- to do what they would not be able to do by means of a straight out agreement amongst themselves. That will be able to be achieved because the Government seeks to apply here a different test to that which we apply to corporate behaviour in the rest of the Act. That is quite offensive to the Opposition. For that reason we shall oppose the proposed amendments- both amendment 24 which the Minister has just moved and the proposed amendment to clause 25 of the Bill.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-We on this side of the House say that to all intents and purposes section 50 is being abolished. The views expressed by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) are similar to those held by honourable members serving on this side of the House, namely, that what the Trade Practices Commission saw in this Act was a sort of total competition law which was operating in this country. The problem in proving contravention under section 46 of the Act and the amendments which are now being proposed to section 50 means that the competition which the Commission was intent upon maintaining will no longer exist. It will leave a very great gap as far as we are concerned in our operations.

Commission was intent upon maintaining will no longer exist. It will leave a very great gap as far as we are concerned in our operations.

Let me reiterate what I said last night in relation to the Trade Practices Commission looking at this question of mergers. We have this enormous conflict in our minds in making laws in the Parliament about the need to maintain competition. We also need to keep in mind that in many ways our industries will be serviced in the future by their ability to compete internationally. Sometimes it would seem- I am sure it works out in practice- that there is a clash between those 2 ideals, that sometimes a merger which would be in the long term interests of Australia may not take place. The Commission itself has had a great deal to say about the matter. Whilst the Minister said earlier in the evening that he was not being critical of the activities of the Commission but that ultimately the role of government had to be taken up, nevertheless, in many cases, the Government seems to be flying in the face of what the Commission has had to say. Like the honourable member for Grayndler, I think it would indeed be very gratifying if we could receive the views of the Commission in relation to the Bill that is now before the chamber altering the trade practices laws in this country.

I remind honourable members of what the Commission had to say about competition. It said:

As competition is so central to the Act, it may be useful to quote what the Trade Practices Tribunal had to say, when discussing competition in general terms in its only decision so far on the merits of an authorisation case taken to it on review from the Commission (the Barnes-Milling merger case):

Competition may be valued for many reasons as serving economic, social and political goals. But in identifying the existence of competition in particular industries or markets we must focus upon its economic role as a device for controlling the disposition of society’s resources. Thus we think of competition as a mechanism for discovery of market information and for enforcement of business decisions in the light of this information. It is a mechanism, first, for firms discovering the kinds of goods and services the community wants and the manner in which these may be supplied in the cheapest possible way. Prices and profits are the signals which register the play of these forces of demand and supply. At the same time, competition is a mechanism of enforcement: Firms disregard these signals at their peril, being fully aware that there are other firms, either currently in existence or yet unborn, which would be only too willing to encroach upon their market share and ultimately supplant them.

In giving that view, the Commission also quoted from the 1955 report of the United States Attorney-General National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws. It stated:

The basic characteristic of effective competition in the economic sense is that no one seller, and no group of sellers acting in concert, has the power to choose its level of profits by giving less and charging more. Where there is workable competition, rival sellers, whether existing competitors or new potential entrants into the field, would keep this power in check by offering or threatening to offer effective inducements.

As I have said, the Commission places a great deal of emphasis upon competition. We need to have from the Government an argument as to how competition will be maintained with these amendments. The Minister said a great deal more. He said that the people who have previously sought clearance and authorisation no longer will need to do so. As I said, it would seem to us on this side of the chamber that section 50 is to be abolished. In some ways- one cannot give instances- but it is not a total opposition from this side about what might have to happen in industry in Australia. There has been no expression from the Government about the maintenance of competition or the maintenance of the expertise or surveillance as the Commission has known it. From looking at the charts and the statistics at the back of the annual reports, it would seem to me that the Government would have to identify these vast numbers of mergers that are being held up. As far as the Commission itself is concerned, it says that it has a certain selfenforcement in that some mergers are not sought because of the law as it exists. It may be that a lot of those figures do not appear here because of that self-enforcement feature of the Act as it now exists. It seems, from looking at the figures that have existed since October 1 974, that as far as the Trade Practices-Commission is concerned, a charge of holding up mergers, of delaying mergers and of not acting in the interests of industry, whether it be a failing company or whatever, just does not hold water. In the total competition law this section is vital to the operations of the Trade Practices Commission. Until the Government gives a better explanation, or perhaps amends the legislation in such a fashion as to answer the questions raised by the Opposition and perhaps satisfy us that the Commission will still maintain these powers to survey the competition as it thinks it should exist or as the laws of the land say it should exist, we stand opposed to the amendment.

Thursday, 26 May 1977 Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 67

NOES: 27

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

– I move amendment No. 25:

In proposed section 50 (4) (b), omit “the contract” (second occurring), substitute “the provisions of the contract relating to the acqquisition ‘ ‘.

I have already spoken to the amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 68

NOES: 29

Majority…… 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

– I move amendment No. 26:

After proposed sub-section (5), insert the following subsection: ‘ “(6) This section does not apply to an acquisition by a corporation of shares in the capital, or of assets, of a body corporate that is related to the corporation. ‘ ‘ ‘.

Earlier in the debate I explained the basis of the amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 68

NOES: 29

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the clause, as amended, be agreed to.

The Committee divided. In division:

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drummond)- Order!

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN -Order! There seems to be a problem. Is another division required?

Mr Young- Yes.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! As there seems to be a problem with the marking of the sheet the question will be put again.

Question put-

That the clause, as amended, be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 67

NOES: 29

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported.

House adjourned at 12.51 a.m. (Thursday)

page 1876

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Electoral Division of Perth: Department of Health Expenditures (Question No. 13)

Mr McLean:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

What recurrent and non-recurrent expenditures under major programs administered by his Department in the Electoral Division of Perth were made in 1 976.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The major programs administered by my Department in the Electoral Division of Perth are:

1 ) the School Dental Scheme;

2 ) the Hospitals Development Program;

the Community Health Program;

the Home Nursing Service;

5 ) the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service;

Health Program Grants;

the Drug Education Program;

8) the Family Planning Program.

A statement on each program is provided in the following paragraphs.

. School Dental Scheme

The aim of the School Dental Scheme is to provide free dental care including health education to all children under 1 5 years of age with initial emphasis on the primary school children.

Details of the capital expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth Government on the School Dental Clinics in the Electoral Division of Perth in the financial year 1975-76, are as follows:

The above school dental clinics commenced operation in the latter part of the 1 975-76 financial year.

  1. Hospitals Development Program

Under the Hospitals Development Program, the Commonwealth does not fund individual projects. Each State grant is provided in relation to an overall hospital capital works program submitted by the State and approved jointly by State and Commonwealth representatives.

In the financial year 1975-76 Western Australia received a grant of $1 1,900,000 which represented approximately 33.6 per cent of the total State expenditure on hospital capital works.

The projects in the Electorate of Perth which have been included in the Program are:

  1. Community Health Program

The Commonwealth Government provides funds annually to assist the States, Local Government Authorities (through the States) and voluntary organisations in the establishment and extension of community based health services. In addition some direct assistance is provided to National Voluntary Organisations.

In the financial year 1975-76 the State of Western Australia received $2,876,610 for this purpose. Of this amount $2,098, 1 85 was spent in the Electoral Division of Perth. The following list provides a break-up of expenditure by projects.

  1. 4 ) Home Nursing Service

Under this heading subsidies are paid to approved nonprofit organisations conducting home nursing services. The scheme commenced on I January 1975.

There are three Home Nursing Organisations operating in Western Australia. It is not possible to dissect the expenditure into electorates.

The following recurrent amounts were paid during the financial year 1975-76 to:

  1. Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service

A total of $342,040 was paid to the Western Australian Government during the financial year 1975-76, being reimbursement of 35 per cent of the operating cost and 50 per cent of the capital program for the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service in the State. This comprised $330,040 for operating and $ 1 2,000 for capital expenditure.

No break-up by electorates is available.

  1. Health Program Grants

The Family Planning Association of Western Australia in the Electoral Division of Perth received a Health Program Grant of $69,356 for recurring expenditure in respect of clinical costs in the financial year 1975-76. A grant is made available annually for the clinical activities of the Association.

  1. Drug Education Program

An amount of $85,500 was paid in the financial year 1 975-76 to the Western Australian Government for payment to the Health Education Council of W.A. for the purpose of drug education in the State. No break-up by electorates is available.

  1. Family Planning Program

The Family Planning Association of Western Australia, in the Electoral Division of Perth, received a direct contribution of $14,993 in the financial year 1975-76 for its non-clinical activities such as education, training and research. In addition, the Australian Federation of Family Planning Associations distributed $17,600 of its 1975-76 grant under the Program to the Western Australian Association.

The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission distributed $6,900 of its 1975-76 grant under the Program to the Perth Natural Family Planning Clinic.

The Family Medicine Program, Nedlands, Western Australia, received $14,993 in the financial year 1975-76 for its program of professional education in family planning.

No break-up by electorates of these amounts is available.

Aboriginal Commercial Enterprises (Question No. 16)

Mr McLean:

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

  1. Which Aboriginal commercial enterprises, initially purchased or funded by the Government, have been instigated in the period 1 972 to 1 976, inclusive.
  2. What Government expenditure, of a non-recurrent nature, was involved in each of these enterprises.
  3. Which of these enterprises have ceased operating and what is the reason in each case.
  4. Which of those enterprises referred to in Pan ( 1 ) are:

    1. still operating successfully; and
    2. still operating but are no longer commercially successful.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (4) The information sought by the honourable member in respect of funding of Aboriginal organisations in the past four years is available as follows: financial years 1972-73 and 1973-74- Second Reading speeches in respect of States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bills given in the Senate on 7 March 1973 and 1 1 October 1973 respectively; financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76-for technical reasons, the details requested were not included in the Second Reading speeches in respect of the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bills for these years, but the information was tabled in the Senate and is available in the Parliamentary library.

The honourable member is also referred to the annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for additional information.

The work involved in providing the details sought on individual enterprises funded by the Government is considerable and I do not propose-to direct my Department to undertake this task. I will, however, consider any request from the honourable member for information in respect of specific organisations.

Aboriginal Non-commercial Enterprises (Question No. 17)

Mr McLean:

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

  1. 1 ) Which Aboriginal non-commercial enterprises funded by the Government, e.g. pick-up services, have been instigated in the period 1972-1976 inclusive.
  2. What capital and recurrent Government expenditure has been involved in each of these projects.
  3. Which of these enterprises have ceased operating and what is the reason in each case.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) The information sought by the honourable member in respect of allocations made to Aboriginal organisations in the past four years is available as follows: financial years 1972-73 and 1973-74- second reading speeches in respect of States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bills given in the Senate on 7 March 1973 and 1 1 October 1973 respectively; financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76- for technical reasons, the details requested were not included in the second reading speeches in respect of the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bills for these years, but the information was tabled in the Senate and is available in the Parliamentary library.

The honourable member is also referred to the annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for additional information.

The work involved in providing details of individual projects is considerable and I do not propose to direct my Department to undertake this task. I will, however, consider any request from the honourable member for information in respect of specific organisations.

Conciliation and Arbitration Regulation No. 146AP (Question No. 99)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Does Regulation 146AP of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations permit a Returning Officer to commence the counting of a ballot before the closing date of such ballot in those cases in which the rules of a registered organisation permit counting to commence before the ballot closes.

Mr Street:
LP

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

No. Regulations 146AN and 146AO provide that the sealed containers containing the returned ballot papers are to be opened as soon as practicable after the time of the close of the ballot.

Conciliation and Arbitration Regulation No. 146AQ (Question No. 100)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Does Regulation 146AQ of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations entitle a candidate for office in a registered organisation to appoint a scrutineer in cases where the rules of the organisation preclude candidates for a particular office from appointing a scrutineer.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Regulation 146AQ provides that each candidate for election may appoint to be a scrutineer a person who is eligible under the rules of the organisation to be a scrutineer. I am advised that the effect of Regulation 146AB is that Regulation 146AQ applies irrespective of the rules of an organisation.

I am also advised that rules which failed to provide for the appointment of scrutineers would be contrary to section 133 (1) (d) (v) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which requires that the rules provide for ‘the appointment, conduct and duties of scrutineers to represent the candidates at the ballot’. 1 am further advised that the Industrial Registrar has refused to certify rules which preclude candidates from appointing scrutineers but provide for the appointment of scrutineers by persons other than candidates on the ground that such scrutineers could not be said ‘to represent the candidates’ and that such a provision imposes unreasonable conditions upon members, contrary to sub-section ( 1 ) of section 140 of the Act.

Tertiary Education (Question No. 103)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

What was the ratio of students going on to tertiary education to children of the relevant age of the population in the years 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, and in each year since 1960.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Information showing the relationship between numbers of school leavers proceeding to universities and colleges of advanced education and numbers of children in the relevant age group in the population, for the year specified by the honourable member, is not available.

However, the table below sets out the ratios between the total numbers of students enrolled in undergraduate courses at universities and the total population falling in the age range 1 7 to 22 years for each of the years specified in the honourable member’s question. Ratios are also shown for colleges of advanced education from 1968.

Ratio of the numbers of undergraduate students in universities and colleges of advanced education to the total population in the 17-22 age group

  1. Includes enrolments in teachers colleges which became colleges of advanced education.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Note: Statistics relating to colleges of advanced education are available only from 1968. Comparable information on courses offered by institutes of technology and teachers colleges prior to that date is not available.

Advance Purchase Airfares (Question No. 132)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What is the anticipated effect on Australia’s travel deficit arising from the recently introduced APEX (advance purchase) fare between Sydney/London and London/Sydney by Qantas and British Airways.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Australian Tourist Commission estimates that the recently introduced APEX fare could lead to an increase of approximately $600,000 in Australia’s travel deficit for 1977. However, it should be noted that the estimate is a very broad one and other variables may affect the final outcome.

Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders: Payment of Mining Royalties (Question No. 256)

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

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

Does his answer to Senator Keeffe on 23 February 1977 (Senate Hansard, page 350) mean that there is no provision in Queensland for mining royalties to be paid to Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Director of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement informed my Department that ‘. . . the appropriation of royalties falls within the authority of the Department of Mines. However, I can say that in accordance with Queensland ‘s policy, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders would be viewed no differently from any other Queenslander regardless of racial ancestry’.

Department of Transport: Resignations from Melbourne Offices (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 1 976 to date.
  2. 2 ) What were the reasons given for each resignation.
  3. 3 ) What were the names, classifications, ages and salaries of the 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

– This answer to the honourable member’s question is in substitution for that which appeared on page 974 of House of Representatives Hansard of 1 9 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) 1 50, out of a total Central Office staff of 1 960.
  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 of the staff concerned to publish details of their names, ages and classifications.
  2. Filled by appointment from outside the
  1. Operational Operational staff …. 20 Administrative and clerical support staff 5 1 79 Others………… 8
  2. The honourable member’s question No. 2044 was laced on notice two days before the House rose in the last Session of this Parliament.

Northern Territory: Expenditure on Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 366)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977: (.1 ) Has the Government slashed a further $6m from Aboriginal Affairs in the Northern Territory.

  1. If so, was this money to have been spent on upgrading schools in Aboriginal communities in the Territory.
  2. Has one school at Elcho Island been closed for health reasons, and does it continue to lack proper toilet facilities.
  3. What expenditure does he envisage to help the 400 children at this school and the many others affected.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No.
  2. Elcho Island School did not open immediately at the commencement of this school year because of damage to the school toilets, whose septic systems were flooded by heavy rain just before school was due to open. However, arrangements were made to have urgent repairs made to the toilets and for two transportable toilet/ablution units to be shipped to the school. As a result, the pre-school re-opened on 17 February and the school re-opened on 2 1 February.
  3. Funds are being provided in the current financial year to upgrade the school by providing a number of new facilities including domestic science and an/craft facilities, an industrial ans unit, library and toilet blocks, at a cost of about Sim. A further $1 10,000 is to be spent on repairs and maintenance to teacher housing and existing school buildings.

Aboriginal Affairs: Expenditure on Legal Aid (Question No. 378)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

What proportion of the total Federal Government’s expenditure on Aboriginal affairs was made on legal aid in each of the years 1971-72 to 1975-76.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Grower Cattle: Exports to Japan (Question No. 398)

Mr McVeigh:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Can he say whether the Japanese Government plans to be 80 per cent self-sufficient in meat by 1 980.
  2. If so, would there be a market in Japan for grower cattle from Australia. If so, what can be done by the Australian Government and the Australian grazing industry to develop this market.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) It is the Japanese Government’s stated policy to be 80 per cent self-sufficient in beef by 1 985. It is my belief that this objective will not be easily realised.
  2. In the past, Australia has exported both breeding and feeder cattle to Japan. There are, however two obstacles, the limited capacity of the Japanese quarantine facilities and the Japanese health certification requirements.

Commonwealth Bank: Employment of Tradesmen (Question No. 399)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Can he say whether the Commonwealth Bank employs electricians, carpenters, fitters, motor mechanics and other tradesmen in their maintenance division.
  2. ) If so, are there any apprentices employed by the Bank.
  3. If not, would this provide an ideal opportunity for the Government to show the way in helping the young unemployed find a trade.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

As this matter concerns the administration of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation I have obtained the following information from the Managing Director of the Corporation:

The Corporation employs 78 maintenance tradesmen who are engaged in a wide range of crafts in all States in Australia. Most of these tradesmen are long-serving permanent employees. Details of trade positions and geographical location are as follows:

Since 1974, Australia has been unable to meet Japan’s animal health regulations pertaining to the import of breeder and feeder cattle. These regulations include the requirements that all breeding cattle imported into Japan must show a negative reaction when tested for Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR) and that imported feeder cattle must be certified as having come from a herd which has been free of IBR for the previous 12 months. As IBR is endemic in Australia, we cannot export breeder or feeder cattle to Japan at present. However, the requirements in respect of breeder cattle have recently changed and it is possible that Australia may be able to meet them in the future. If we are successful in meeting these requirements we will pursue the matter of entry for feeder cattle along the same lines.

  1. In Western Australia the Corporation employs two apprentices in the electrical and air-conditioning fields.
  2. The relatively small number of tradesmen’s positions in any one centre and the spread of crafts involved do not provide ready scope for the conduct of a large apprenticeship scheme by the Corporation. Nevertheless, the Corporation is carefully evaluating likely future requirements to determine whether there is scope for additional apprentices to be appointed. The possibility of participation in the government group off-the-job training schemes for apprentices is also being investigated. However, for reasons already given, it would seem unlikely that the Corporation will find it practicable to appoint more than a small number of additional apprentices in the immediate future.

Unemployment Figures: Discrepancies (Question No. 460)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he say in a speech to the House on 1 5 March 1 976 that there is a discrepancy between the figures prepared by the Commonwealth Employment Service and those published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  2. Did the CES have 304 000 persons registered as unemployed at the end of February 1976, and did the Bureau estimate the number of unemployed as being between 309 500 and 3 14 500 during the same month.
  3. Does this mean that in February 1976 the CES figures underestimated unemployment.
  4. If not, what is the explanation of the difference.
  5. Are the CES figures for registered unemployed or the Bureau quarterly labour force survey figures, the most statistically reliable indicator of the level of unemployment in Australia.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The CES statistics do not measure unemployment; they record the number of persons registered for placement in full-time employment. The total number of persons registered for full-time employment with the CES at the end of February 1976 was 303 700. During the same month the ABS estimated the total number of unemployed seeking either full-time or part-time work to be 304 500.

The Statistician commented at the time on the reliability of the ABS estimates in these terms: ‘Since the estimates are based on a sample, they may differ from the figures that would have been obtained from a complete census using the same questionnaires and procedures. There are about two chances in three that the differences would be less than 4000 for total unemployed males, less than 3500 for total unemployed females and less than 5000 for total unemployed persons, and about nineteen chances in twenty that they would be less than twice these figures’.

  1. No.
  2. and (5) Comparison of the number of CES registrants and the total ABS survey measures of unemployment must allow for a number of different factors.

One important difference between the two series is that while registration with the CES is available only to those seeking full-time employment, the ABS survey estimate of unemployment includes those seeking both full-time and pan-time employment. Any comparison between the two must allow for this difference- most appropriately, by comparing the ABS survey estimate of the number unemployed seeking only full-time work with total CES registrants.

The table below presents appropriate comparison of the two series for February 1976 and includes also the latest available figures for February 1977:

In considering the CES figures as a measure of the level of unemployment, allowance should be made for the fact that at any point in time some registrants:

  1. will have found a job independently of the CES and will not have been removed from the register;

    1. are already employed but wish to change jobs;
    2. are no longer actively seeking a job and therefore cannot be considered unemployed on the internationally agreed definition used by the ABS; and
    3. register fraudulently in order to draw unemployment benefits.

Some evidence of the magnitude of some of these factors has been provided by the various ABS surveys of metropolitan CES registrants in March 1963, September 1974, and March 1977. The employment status (on standard international definition) of the respondents to those surveys is summarised in the table below:

On the other hand, registration with the CES is voluntary and some genuine unemployed will choose not to register for one reason or another.

Estimates of unemployment derived from the quarterly ABS survey are also subject to possible inaccuracy. First, sampling error may arise because the survey is based on a small percentage of the population; this error is thought to be typically small and, as indicated under (2) above, is statistically quantifiable. Non-sampling error may also arise from imperfections in reporting by interviewers and respondents. Error of this sort is not quantifiable, although the Statistician makes every effort to minimise it. A detailed discussion of the reliability of the survey estimates is contained in each issue of ‘The Labour Force’, reference 6.20, published quarterly by ABS.

Patrick Partners (Question No. 473)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the partners of Patrick Partners enter into deeds of arrangement pursuant to section 204 of the Bankruptcy Act instead of being made bankrupt. If so, did creditors suffer as a result of this action.
  2. Were transactions as preferences effected which could have been avoided if the partners had been made bankrupt instead of entering into deeds of arrangement. If so, what were they.
  3. Has there been any acquisition by the partners since the deeds of arrangement were executed which would have been made available to creditors if the partners had been made bankrupt. If so, what are the details.
  4. Is it proposed to amend Pan X of the Bankruptcy Act so that preferences may be avoided and acquired property included in property to be distributed to creditors when a deed of arrangement is executed.
  5. Is it proposed to amend Pan X of the Bankruptcy Act so as to give secured creditors the same rights at meetings as unsecured creditors where a deed of arrangement is proposed.
  6. Is it proposed to amend Pan X of the Bankruptcy Act so as to allow the registrar to conduct public examinations of the debtor who is the subject of the deed of arrangement.
  7. Is it proposed to amend Pan X of the Bankruptcy Act so as to deal with partners who become bankrupt.
  8. Is it proposed to prescribe the form of deeds of arrangement under Pan X of the Bankruptcy Act so that deeds will fully protect creditors.
  9. Is it proposed to amend Pan X of the Bankruptcy Act so that trustees are subject to greater control by the Court and creditors.
  10. Is it proposed to spell out more specifically the powers of a trustee to deal with a debtor’s property between the time the trustee is asked to act and a deed of arrangement is entered into under Pan X of the Bankruptcy Act.
  11. 1 1 ) Is there any evidence to indicate that the trustee for Patrick Partners has been guilty of any misfeasance or neglect under section 2 1 2 of the Bankruptcy Act in respect of dealings with Moby Investments Pty Ltd and any of its related companies or directors of such companies.
  12. What are the precise details of the preference given by Patrick Partners to Pioneer Concrete which could nave been avoided if they had been made bankrupt instead of entering into deeds of arrangement.
  13. What companies in the Patrick group are registered or incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory or Northern Territory.
  14. 14) Is it proposed to investigate the affairs or any of these companies.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. On 19 March 1976, Max Richard Laidley Dowling, Norman Roy Course, John Albert Keir, Timothy Richard Wigram Alien, Rupert Webb Burge, John Stewart Corner, William James Wilbraham Edwards, Alexander Bun, Peter Davie, Lionel James Milligan, David Ireson Thorpe, who were partners in the firm known as ‘Patrick Partners’ each executed a deed of arrangement under Pan X of the Bankruptcy Act. There is no certainty that these persons would have become bankrupt if they had not executed the deeds. On an application to the Federal Court of Bankruptcy by the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited to restrain these persons from executing the deeds Mr Justice Riley in his judgment given on 1 April 1976 found that the Bank failed to satisfy the Court that the individual deeds departed from a plan of administration that would be just and equitable and for the advantage of creditors (Re Patrick Partners 10A.L.R.71 at pp. 88 and 89).
  2. At page 89 in the judgment referred to in the answer to part ( 1 ) of this question Mr Justice Riley said that the Bank had not satisfied the Court that ‘the amount that could be recovered under the “preference” provisions in bankruptcy if proceedings under those provisions were successful would exceed the amounts contributed under the deed from separate estates’.
  3. I do not know nor am I in a position to enquire if there have been any acquisitions of property by the partners of Patrick Partners since the execution of the eleven deeds of arrangement on 19 March 1976.
  4. Under the present law preferences may be recovered under a deed of assignment but not under a deed of arrangement. There is a conflict of judicial opinion as to whether or not property acquired after the execution of a deed of arrangement can be brought into the administration under the deed. Whether to resolve for a deed of assignment or a deed of arrangement and, in the latter case, what are to be the terms of a deed of arrangement are questions that are left to be decided by a majority in number and three-quarters in value of the creditors present and voting at the relevant meeting.
  5. Under the present law, a partly secured creditor has in relation to the unsecured portion of his debt the same rights as any other unsecured creditor. A fully secured creditor can, at present, exercise all his rights under his security, or alternatively, surrender his security for the benefit of creditors generally and proceed as if he were an unsecured creditor.
  6. Under the present law, a debtor who is the subject of a deed of arrangement can be examined under section 8 1 of the Bankruptcy Act. Such examinations are always held in public.
  7. The Government is considering amendments designed to clarify the application of the provisions of Part X to partners who seek to have their partnership affairs administered under Part X.
  8. To prescribe a form would be contrary to the concept of a deed of arrangement. Under the present law, the terms of a deed of arrangement are matters for the creditors.
  9. and (10) The Government is considering several amendments to Pan X in the light of experience since the commencement of the Bankruptcy Act and because of decisions, including decisions in the matter of Patrick Partners resulting in judicial interpretation of some of the provisions of the Part.
  10. Not that lam aware of.
  11. 12) According to the report dated 2 1 December 1976 by Mr G. G. Masterman, Q.C., an inspector appointed under the New South Wales Securities Industry Act, on 10 July 197S Pioneer Concrete Services Limited withdrew from Patrick Partners a deposit of $500,000 which it had made at call in June 1971. Mr Masterman said in his report that there was a ‘significant possibility ‘ that the amount paid to Pioneer Concrete Services Limited would have been recoverable (by the trustee in a bankruptcy on a petition brought within the six months after 10 July 1975). (See paragraph 908 of his report).
  12. I am not aware of any list of the companies with which Patrick Partners, either as a partnership or as individuals, were associated.

    1. M.T.I. Ltd, Central Bill Clearance Ltd, Tashtego Pry Ltd, Morialta Pty Ltd, Patbank Pty Ltd and Sandra Investments Pty Ltd, each of which is believed to be associated with Patrick Partners, are incorporated in the A.C.T. Patcorp Investments Pry Ltd, which is also believed to be associated with Patrick Partners, is registered as a foreign company in the A.C.T.
    2. b) I am not aware of any company known or believed to be associated with Patrick Partners that is incorporated in the Northern Territory. Patrick Intermarine (Australia) Ltd and Patrick Intermarine Acceptances Ltd, each of which is believed to be associated with Patrick Partners, are registered as foreign companies in the Northern Territory.
  13. No cause has yet been shown that would warrant detailed investigation under the Companies Ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory of any of the companies referred to in the answer to part (13) of this question.

Youth Employment Training Scheme (Question No. 519)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. Can he say whether trainees have been employed under the Youth Employment Training Scheme by the Safeway Supermarket and Criterion Hotel in the Geelong district.
  2. If so, were these trainees appointed to positions from which other persons were dismissed.
  3. Are inquiries made by his Department to determine the cause of vacancies which are being filled by subsidised trainees.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) As the details of particular transactions within offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service must remain confidential, it is not appropriate for me to provide information in respect of these questions.
  2. Yes. The Special Youth Employment Training Programme aims to provide an incentive for employers to train long term unemployed youth. An employer may notify a training vacancy specifically for this programme. CES instructions specify that employers who are known to have retrenched employees and then requested a subsidy for training of new workers should be given low priority for any further training under the programme.

Royal Australian Navy: Steaming Time Royal Australian Air Force: Flying Time (Question No. 531)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What increase was there in actual

    1. steaming time for the Navy and
    2. flying time for the RAAF in 1976 compared with 1975.
  2. 2 ) What is the proposed increase in

    1. steaming time for the Navy and
    2. flying time for the RAAF in 1976-77 compared with 1975-76.
  3. In each case, what was the level of

    1. steaming time for the Navy and
    2. b ) flying time for the RAAF in the earlier year.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. to (3) The answer to the Question bears a Security classification that cannot be made public without disclosing an operational capability of the RAN and RAAF.

Qantas: Withdrawal of Services (Question No. 536)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Has Qantas indicated its desire to withdraw from any (a) regional or (b) international air services since 11 November 1975.
  2. If so, (a) when was such a desire communicated to him and (b) which regional and /or international air services were nominated.
  3. 3 ) What action has he taken in respect of each case.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) yes
  2. (a) Through correspondence from Qantas dated 22 December 1975, 16 January 1976 and 29 November 1976 and through timetables filed with the Department during March 1977.

    1. Services to and through Tahiti, Brisbane-Nadi, ‘ Jakarta-Singapore, and Darwin- Jakarta sectors. In addition Qantas ceased operations on the Sydney-Norfolk Island service, but this sector is a domestic one.
  3. In all cases withdrawal of the above services was approved.

Judges: Retiring Ages (Question No. 560)

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

am asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How old were the Chief Justices, Chief Judges and justices of the High Court and the various and successive federal courts at the time of their appointment to those courts.
  2. ) How old were they when they ceased to be members of those courts.
  3. How old were those who had resigned from those courts when they died.
  4. How long ago did each State Parliament legislate for a retiring age forjudges appointed by the State government.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3): Tables 1-5 set out information available to my Department. I am informed that in several instances, insufficient information is available to my Department to show the age on cessation of duty and/or death of a judge.

  1. Table 6 sets out the information as requested.

Inter-State Commission Act 1975 (Question No. 581)

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

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1977:

  1. Did he say on 17 March 1976 (Hansard, page 705) that the Fraser Government would consider proclaiming the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 at the conclusion of commissions and committees of inquiry set up by the Whitlam Government.
  2. If so, which of these commissions and inquiries did he believe relevant to the Act.
  3. 3 ) Which of them have not yet concluded.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. My statement is set out on page 705 of Hansard.
  2. and (3 ) See my answer to ( 1 ) above.

I also refer the honourable member to my reply to his question of 8 March 1977 concerning the proclamation of the Inter-State Commission Act 1 975. In that reply, I pointed out that no decision has been made regarding the proclamation of the Inter-State Commission Act 1 975.

Antarctic: Australian Bases (Question No. 585)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Where are Australian bases located in the Antarctic.
  2. ) What is the strength of the manning at each base.
  3. What ships are chartered by the Commonwealth to service these bases.
  4. From which company are these charters made.
  5. What is the cost of these charters to the Commonwealth.
  6. Do these ships contain any scientific facilities to be used by Australian scientists.
  7. If not, what consideration has the Government given to purchasing its own ship, and what would be the estimated cost of such a project.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. Macquarie Island 50° 30’ South 158° 58’ East. Distance from Melbourne- 2 1 34 kilometres.

Casey 60° 17’ South 110° 33’ East. Distance from Melbourne 3842 kilometres.

Davis 68° 35’ South 77° 58’ East. Distance from Melbourne 52 12 kilometres.

Mawson 67° 36’ South 62” 53’ East. Distance from Melbourne 5840 kilometres.

  1. Macquarie Island…….. 20

M.V. Nella Dan. M.V. Thala Dan.

  1. J. Lauritzen, Copenhagen, Denmark. M.V. Thala Dan is sub-let from the French Antarctic expedition who charter the ship from J. Lauritzen.
  2. Costs for 1976-77-

M.V. Nella Dan-20 day charter-$900,000. M.V. Thala Dan-50 day charter$356,000.

  1. No.
  2. A committee has been set up to examine all of Australia’s options for transport to Antarctica. Alternative transport systems which are under consideration include a ship-based system and the establishment of an air link direct from Antarctica. A report from the Committee is expected shortly.

The cost of a replacement vessel is estimated to be between $ 1 5,000,000 and $20,000,000.

Antarctic: Air Services to Australian Bases (Question No. 586)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does Australia have any facilities to service its Antarctic bases by air.
  2. If not, has consideration been given to providing such a service.
  3. What are the technical difficulties involved in such an operation, excluding lack of landing strips.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes. An Interdepartmental Committee is examining the ways and means of providing an improved transport system to the Australian Antarctic stations, including use of aircraft and ships. A report from this Committee is expected shortly.
  3. Besides the lack of landing strips there are a number of technical difficulties. These include the provision and cost of multi-engined aircraft to be ski-equipped for landing on the snow; fuel and refuelling facilities at the Australian stations; additional accommodation; air navigation aids and additional communications.

Action for World Development (Question No. 605)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What action has Action for World Development taken with the Commonwealth Government in order to have foreign aid given to countries which are termed communist.
  2. What amounts of aid have been given by AWD to communist countries since 1972.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) As far as I am aware. Action for World Development has taken no action with the Government in order to have foreign aid given to countries which are termed communist.
  2. Action for World Development is an ecumenical development education agency sponsored at a national level by the Australian Council of Churches and the Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church. It seeks to promote understanding of the issues of world development and to encourage Australian citizens to take appropriate action for a more just world. AWD does not engage in fund raising activities and does not send funds overseas.

Bureau of Agricultural Economics: Field Survey Staff (Question No. 609)

Mr Mackenzie:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it the policy of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to appoint Field Survey staff by advertising vacant positions for open competition both within and outside the Public Service.
  2. What qualifications are considered desirable for Field Staff and does the Bureau consider that substantial contact with farmers is an essential prerequisite for such positions.
  3. Was the recent appointment to the position of Field Officer Grade 1, Third Division, Projects Economics Section No. 1542 made in accordance with the Bureau’s policy concerning Field Staff appointments.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Decisions on advertising Public Service vacancies ouside the Service are based upon consideration of the nature and the number of vacancies, and an assessment of the likely availability of suitable permanent officers within the Service to fill those vacancies. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics adheres to this general principle with regard to Field Officer vacancies.
  2. No special qualifications have been prescribed by the Public Service Board to the BAE in respect of Field Officer positions. However, in making decisions concerning the promotion or appointment of Field Officers the BAE takes into account such factors as the possession of a diploma from a recognised agricultural college; experience in an appropriate field of primary production, preferably with relevant experience in field surveys and investigation; and previous contact with farmers.
  3. Yes.

Sheep in Queensland (Question No. 635)

Mr Carige:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the number of sheep in Queensland dropped from 24VS million to 131/2 million during the last 10 years.
  2. ) If so, and in view of the difficulty being experienced in disposing of our beef and the upturn in the consistent demand for wool, will the Government consider granting low interest loans to cattle producers, in accepted sheep areas in Queensland, to enable them to convert from cattle to sheep.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Data publishd by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that the number of sheep in Queensland was 18.38 million at 3 1 March 1 966 and 1 3.6 million at 3 1 March 1976. The peak numbers recorded were 20.32 million at 31 March 1969.
  2. ) The Rural Adjustment Scheme provides an avenue for primary producers who are unable to obtain finance on reasonable terms from any other normal sources to obtain loans on concessional terms to enable them to change their land use. This assistance may be provided to farmers under the newly introduced farm improvement provisions of the Scheme in cases where it would assist the restoration of an uneconomic property to economic viability.

Full details of the Rural Adjustment Scheme can be obtained by interested land holders in Queensland from the Rural Reconstruction Board, Box 2 1 1 GPO, Brisbane 4000.

Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (Question No. 643)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:

What sum was paid under each category of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme during (a) December 1976 and (b) January 1977.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (Question No. 644)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

What sum was paid under each category of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme during (a) February and (b) March 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Aboriginal Land Fund Commission: Acquisition of Land (Question No. 651)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission possess the power to acquire compulsorily a property or to force a person wishing to sell to cancel a recent sale so that the Commission can purchase it.
  2. If so, what criteria are used by the Commission for these purchases.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

No.

Aboriginal Land Fund Commission: Use of Land (Question No. 652)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission differentiate between requests by Aboriginal communities for land for (a) recreational, social and cultural purposes and (b) agriculture.
  2. If so, does this influence the size and type of land purchased by the Commission.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission has advised me that:

it does differentiate between requests for land for recreational, social and cultural and agricultural purposes but that in most cases where the request is for land for agricultural purposes there is a need for other elements also.

the size and type of land purchases is governed by 3 criteria:

where a specific property is requested by an Aboriginal group, its suitability for the group’s intentions;

the availability of the property; and

funds available.

Aboriginal Land Fund Commission: Farms (Question No. 653)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) If land purchased by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission is for agriculture, does the Commission check that the persons for whom the land is purchased are genuinely anxious to farm the property and have shown by their previous employment that they are suited physically, psychologically and technically for farming.
  2. What evaluation is made before purchase that the property is, or has the potential to be, a commercially viable farm.
  3. Is the advice of local agricultural experts obtained.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission has advised that:

such checks are carried out for all land purchases made by the Commission;

and (3) agricultural consultants are engaged to report on the potential viability of each property before purchase is considered and, where possible, a local person is engaged.

Aboriginal Land Fund Commission: Request from Echuca Aboriginal Co-operative (Question No. 655)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

Is the request for land by the Echuca Aboriginal Cooperative primarily for land for social, recreational or cultural purposes, or tor agricultural purposes.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission has advised that the request for land by the Echuca Aboriginal Co-operative is primarily for land for agricultural purposes. The land will also have incidental social and recreational uses of benefit to local Echuca Aboriginals.

Aboriginal Land Fund Commission: Land for Echuca Aboriginal Co-operative (Question No. 656)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Was Baroona the only property considered by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission for the Echuca Aboriginal Co-operative.
  2. If so, is this the usual practice.
  3. If not, what was the size, price and suitability for either agricultural or other purposes of the other properties.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission has advised me that:

1 ) Baroona was the only property considered for the Echuca Aboriginal Co-operative.

and (3) This is the usual practice. Aboriginal communities choose one significant property and if it is found to be suitable for their purpose, subject to availability, price, funds, etc., the ALFC enters into negotiations with the vendor.

Particles in the Atmosphere (Question No. 662)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:

When, how and with what result have Federal Ministers or authorities consulted with the Queensland, South Australian and Western Australian Governments on the findings of the CSIRO Division of Cloud Physics that the industrial complexes at (a) Mount Isa and (b) Whyalla and Port Pirie each produce as much atmospheric pollution over the inhabited parts of Australia as do all the industries of either Sydney or Melbourne and that the industries proposed for the Pilbara would do the same.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

The honourable member’s question appears to have been prompted by a recent article in the CSIRO Journal ECOS No. 1 1 of February 1977, entitled ‘Air outback; clean but not virginal’ and to subsequent references made to the article in several newspapers. On this occasion the press has misunderstood the implications of the article which described recent progress by the Division of Cloud Physics in its studies of atmospheric panicles.

An important finding reported in the article was that the total number of panicles emitted from the Mount Isa smelters is comparable with that produced by a capital city. However, it should be appreciated that most of the particles emitted from Mount Isa are extremely small and their total mass amounts to only 20 tonnes daily; similar quantities in both number and mass are thought to be emitted from Whyalla and Port Pirie. Emissions of this order are not significant in comparison with the emission of panicles from Sydney, these, while similar in number to those from Mount Isa, have a total mass of at least 1000 tonnes daily.

Most of the particles from Mount Isa, Whyalla and Port Pirie are sub-microscopic in size and do not contribute substantially to the haziness of the atmosphere associated with air pollution. Although their total effect upon the atmosphere has yet to be determined, these sub-microscopic particles are known to stay aloft for lengthy periods and to modify the properties of clouds under certain conditions. While some of these effects are predictable, CSIRO is planning further studies involving a comparison of the properties of clouds formed within the particle plume from the Mount Isa smelter and those clouds formed within nearby undisturbed air. Mount Isa emissions are particularly suited for this study because the smelter is situated remote from other industrial centres and its particle plume can be easily identified.

The findings of this work are expected to lead to a better understanding of the physics of cloud formation but are unlikely to contribute directly to solving problems of air pollution in the metropolitan areas. Although it would be inapropriate to bring this matter formally to the attention of tate Governments, CSIRO will continue to make its results available through the normal channel of publication.

Economy: Increases in Indicators (Question No. 664)

Mr Short:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

What was the percentage increase in (a) minimum weekly wages; (b) average weekly earnings; (c) consumer price index and (d) the gross domestic product deflator in each of the years 1970-71 to 1974-75, and in each quarter since 30 June 1975.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The percentage increases sought by the honourable member are as follows:

Prosecutions for Gun-Running: Darwin (Question No. 668)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Was he consulted before prosecutions of 4 men on charges of gun-running and attempting to export medical supplies were commenced in Darwin in 1 976.
  2. If so, did he authorise or promote the prosecutions. If not, who authorised them.
  3. Are allegations that the prosecutions were politically motivated based on fact.
  4. Can he say whether the magistrate, in sentencing the men, stated that he accepted that they had acted out of charity and humanitarian interest and placed them on a good behaviour bond.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)No

  1. The proceedings against the 4 men were Customs prosecutions. Consistent with section 245 of the Customs Act 1 90 1 , the prosecutions were instituted in the name of the appropriate Collector of Customs who was, in these cases, the Collector for the Northern Territory. Ministerial authority for the prosecutions was not required as a matter of law.
  2. No.
  3. I am informed that the magistrate did comment along the lines suggested, and that all defendants were released on recognizances to be of good behaviour.

Ambassador to Ireland (Question No. 669)

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

  1. Who advised Government House, Canberra, to request Her Majesty The Queen to sign a Letter of Credence to the President of Ireland in terms which, although Prime Minister Menzies and Minister for External Affairs Casey adhered to them very strongly (Hansard, 27 September 1956, page 905), were abandoned in 1958 (Hansard, 19 April 1977, page 985).
  2. ) When and on whose advice was the corrected Letter of Credence dispatched by Government House to Her Majesty.
Mr Peacock:
LP

-The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) The Department of Foreign Affairs submitted the original Letter of Credence to Government House. As was explained to the House in my reply to Question 429, this was incorrectly worded.
  2. The corrected Letter of Credence was submitted by the Department of Foreign Affairs to Government House, for forwarding to Her Majesty the Queen, on 6 April 1 976.

Foreign Airlines: Domestic Routes (Question No. 725)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

Are foreign airlines permitted to fly passengers between Australian cities in competition with domestic airlines. If so, which airlines are involved, and between which cities are they permitted to transport passengers.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The policy under normal circumstances is that foreign airlines are not permitted to fly passengers between Australian cities in competition with domestic airlines.

Mr Massimino Del Prete: Transfer of Funds (Question No. 742)

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

am asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did Mr Massimino Del Prete receive the funds with which he acquired the controlling interest in La Fiamma newspaper through Weisscredit in Switzerland.
  2. Were 15 billion lire transferred through Weisscredit to Mr Del Prete in September 1974.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Australian residents seeking to move capital funds into or out of Australia require exchange control approval from the Reserve Bank of Australia, which administers exchange control on behalf of the Government. However, the Reserve Bank is precluded by its statutory responsibilities from publicly releasing information about individual exchange control applications it might obtain in the course of administration of the control.

Army Exercise: Injuries (Question No. 745)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Were any injuries caused to soldiers during exercise ‘Kangaroo 2’ by the hatch of Ml 13 armoured personnel carriers falling down.
  2. If so, how many soldiers were injured, and what injuries did they sustain.
  3. Have any soldiers been injured in this manner since ‘Kangaroo 2’.
  4. If so, how many, and what injuries did they sustain.
  5. Are the hatches of Ml 13 armoured personnel carriers safe.
  6. If not, what is the cause of any lack of safety.
  7. What action is being taken to examine the hatches and, if it is already known that they are unsafe, what remedial action is being taken.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No incident reports of injury caused in the manner described were received for exercise ‘ Kangaroo 2 ‘.
  2. and (4) Yes reports received since exercise ‘Kangaroo 2 ‘ show that four soldiers have received minor injuries from the hatch covers falling on their heads. Injuries received in each case were lacerations to the scalp requiring a few stitches. (5), (6) and (7) Experienced user officers advise that they have never experienced any safety problem with the current hatch configuration when the quick release catch has been correctly fastened.

Only two defect incident reports concerning the hatches of the Ml 13 family of vehicles have been received. The details are as follows:

  1. November 1973: Investigated and fixed by correct adjustment, and
  2. May 1976: Investigated and fixed by replacement of worn hinges.

In December 1976, however, advice was received from the US Army that under certain conditions, the hatch could slam shut from the open latched position. Accordingly, a modification to the hatch securing mechanism, which was included in the US Army advice, is being considered.

Army: Armed Infantry Units (Question No. 746)

Mr Neil:

– asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Army have any armoured infantry units.
  2. If not, are there any plans for such units.
  3. Have any trials been conducted to test armoured infantry techniques.
  4. If so, have any decisions been made as to whether to continue with these trials.
  5. Have any decisions been made as to whether to form armoured infantry units.
  6. Would the formation of an armoured infantry battalion require additional equipment above that presently held by the Army.
  7. If so, what additional equipment is required, and have any decisions been made to acquire this equipment.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There are no armoured infantry units in the Army at the present time.
  2. There are no plans to raise armoured infantry units at the moment.
  3. A trial is being planned within existing manpower, equipment and financial allocations to develop tactical and organisational concepts appropriate to the employment of mechanized infantry in the Australian setting.
  4. No. Only preparatory steps have been taken. The organisation and objectives for the trial and evaluation phases are presently under review.
  5. 5 ) No. See answer to Question 2.
  6. Equipment requirements cannot be determined until the trial is completed but some additional items could be required.
  7. The procurement of any such additional stores of equipment has not been addressed as there are no plans to raise such a unit in the foreseeable future.

Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd (Question No. 751)

Mr Morris:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

Is he able to say what borrowings have been made abroad by the Broken Hill Pty Company and its subsidiaries during each of the years 1970-71 to 1975-76.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Australian residents seeking to borrow funds from overseas lenders require exchange control approval from the Reserve Bank of Australia, which administers exchange control on behalf of the Government. However, the Reserve Bank is precluded by its statutory responsibilities from publicly releasing information about exchange control applications obtained in the course of administration of exchange control.

Brisbane Airport (Question No. 756)

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND · LP

! asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Who determines the flight path to be used by aircraft arriving and departing at Brisbane Airport.
  2. Is there in existence a designated flight path, for departing aircraft to southern ports, over Mud Island and thence over Redland Bay to the main air corridor to Sydney and beyond.
  3. If so, is there any technical reason that would prevent this being used as the usual route for departing aircraft under normal weather conditions to ease the noise problem in the Wynnum area of the Electoral Division of Bowman.
  4. If not, is it possible for those in authority to issue an instruction to this effect until such time as a new runway complex is constructed at Brisbane Airport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Flight paths to and from Brisbane Airport are determined by the Department of Transport in consultation with representatives of the aviation industry. They are produced to satisfy the requirements of aircraft noise abatement, airspace segregation, traffic flow and terrain clearance.
  2. There is a Standard Instrument Departure flight path which permits aircraft to circumnavigate the suburb of Wynnum but is only used in periods of very light traffic, such as during the evening and at night.
  3. This outbound departure flight path requires aircraft to follow a flight path which necessitates they cross the busy inbound/outbound flight path to Sydney and also the two flight paths to Coolangatta. Consequently in moderate to heavy traffic situations the use of this flight path from Brisbane Airport would create an undue heavy workload on air traffic control and produce a complex situation in which it would be difficult to maintain the high aviation safety standards for which Australia is renowned.
  4. In view of the above it is not reasonable to issue an instruction that the flight path concerned be used on a continuous basis.

Beef Prices (Question No. 771)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

Did he make a public statement supporting increased prices for beef producers in the last week.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

I have made a great many statements recently and over the last two years to the effect that prices beef producers receive for their livestock will have to increase if producers are to stay in business.

Barley Exports (Question No. 777)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What power does the Commonwealth Government have and /or exercise to control barley exports.
  2. What powers do the various State Barley Boards have over barley exports.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to industry complaints that section 92 trading and lack of export price and quality controls is harming the barley industry.
  4. if so, what action is being taken to overcome this problem.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Third Schedule to the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations under the Customs Act 1901 provides for the exercise of control over the exportation of a number of agricultural commodities including barley. The exportation of barley is prohibited unless approval of the Minister for Primary Industry or of an authorised officer is produced to the Collector of Customs. The basis on which these controls on barley are exercised is to attempt to ensure that exports do not cause or exacerbate a domestic shortage.

The Exports (Grain) Regulations under the Customs Act 1 90 1 provide controls over the export of a number of grains including barley with the object of prohibiting the export of those grains if they are infested with insect pests or otherwise in a condition which renders them unfit for export and ensuring that they are handled and shipped under conditions not likely to cause them to become infested or contaminated during handling or in transit to the overseas destination.

  1. Each State barley marketing authority is responsible, in accordance with the provisions of the State legislation under which it is constituted, for the marketing of barley produced within the State in which it operates and subject to any legitimate requirements under Commonwealth or State legislation in respect of exports. The powers of the marketing boards do not extend to barley traded inter-State as provided for by section 92 of the Constitution.
  2. Yes. I have received representations from the barley industry expressing concern at the scope which exists under current marketing arrangements for trading operations outside of the control of the respective boards which could be detrimental to the objective of orderly marketing of barley.
  3. I arranged for the subject of the use of export controls on agricultural products to be discussed within the Australian Agricultural Council in February last. Council agreed that a study group comprising Commonwealth and State officers should be set up to examine alternative measures to the Commonwealth’s export control powers by which more effective control of exports of barley and other coarse grains for orderly marketing purposes might be achieved. The group is to report to the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in July of this year.

Aviation: Medical Practitioners (Question No. 800)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

Is he able to say which charter aircraft firms or commuter airline firms are owned wholly or in part by medical practitioners.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

I am unable to provide the information required as members of the public when applying for charter and aerial work licenses or an exemption under Regulation 203 of the Air Navigation Regulations are not required to supply details of their profession or academic qualifications.

The Monarchy (Question No. 815)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:

  1. Did he say that it would be a tragedy if Australia became a republic, because the monarchy is important because Australians want stability in institutions, so they can plan ahead with a real degree of security. If so, is this a true indication of his sentiments.
  2. Does he consider that such stability of institutions extends to parliamentary convention generally.
  3. If so, are there any exceptions to such a rule of thumb.
Mr Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) In a radio talk to my Electorate, broadcast on 3 April 1977, I said (inter-alia):

The monarchy is also important because Australians want stability in institutions, so that they can plan ahead with a real degree of security . . . I see no cause to move Australia along a republican path. I do not agree with those who say it is inevitable. It would be a tragedy for Australia for I believe we would be less well governed.

In the same talk, I also said: ‘Of course, stability does not mean there is no requirement for change. What it does mean is that progressive policies can be applied and developed with a stable government framework. Policies do and ought to change as requirements alter. But it is important that the framework of government remains stable and practicable’.

It is my practice for my remarks to provide a true indication of my sentiments.

  1. and (3) As the above comments indicated, I favour the application and development of progressive policies within a stable government framework.

Dairy Industry (Question No. 844)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

How much has the Government contributed, or is it estimated will be contributed, to the dairy industry underwriting arrangement for the periods (a) to 30 June 1976, (b) 1 July 1976 to 31 December 1976 and (c) 1 January 1977 to June 1977.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The estimated contribution by the Commonwealth Government in respect to its underwriting commitments to the dairy industry for the 1975-76 and 1976-77 seasons are as follows:

It is not expected that a contribution will be required for cheese.

It will not be possible to determine the actual Commonwealth contribution until the equalisation pools have been finalised. The same position obtains in respect to those States participating in the underwriting arrangements for skim milk powder and casein.

Australian Government Employees: Occupational Health Service (Question No. 81)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. What steps have been taken to establish an Occupational Health Service for Australian Government employees?
  2. If no steps have been taken in the matter, will he examine the proposals, which I formulated early in 1975, to reduce the incidence of industrial disease in the Australian Public Service as well as the rehabilitation of those affected thereby?
  3. Does he favour the establishment of mandatory occupational safety and health standards being made applicable to all employees of the Australian Government, the Australian Government Authorities and Australian Government contractors, employees engaged in the Territories and interstate trade and commerce?
  4. Has his attention been drawn to the enormous cost to industry, as well as the loss in production generally, caused by the present high incidence of industrial accidents and disease in Australia?
Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Hospitals and Health Services Commission has considered the establishment of an occupational health service for Australian Government employees and delivered a report to the Department of Health in 1 975.

Discussions are currently in progress between the Department of Health, the Public Service Board and representatives of the Peak Union Councils as to the steps which can be taken to introduce an occupational health service for Australian Government employees taking into consideration the overriding need for economic restraint.

  1. See answer to ( 1 ) above.
  2. Yes, I do favour the establishment of mandatory occupational safety and health standards being made applicable to all employees of the Commonwealth Government and Commonwealth statutory authorities. The initiative in that area taken by the honourable member when he was Minister for Labour has been continued. However, the extension of those standards to Commonwealth Government contractors, employees engaged in the Territories and interstate trade and commerce poses jurisdictional questions, but with the co-operation of the State Ministers for Labour, considerable progress is being made in the development of uniform safety, health and welfare legislation. This could resolve the difficulties mentioned above.
  3. Yes, and this is why the Government has accorded a high priority to work in both these areas.

Companies: Loans Legislation (Question No. 151)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Is it proposed to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, or any other relevant Act, or introduce legislation, so as to prevent so-called round robin transactions such as were revealed in the fourth report of the Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales on the Barton group of companies.
  2. Will any amendments be carried out in conjunction with a review of sections 67 of the Companies Ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory which in effect prohibit loans for the purchase of a company’s own shares.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Lessee Petrol Resellers (Question No. 152)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 29 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the 4th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum which stated that the relationship between oil companies and lessee dealers is unsatisfactory and calls for reform.
  2. If so, will he investigate the position of lessee petrol resellers under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction with a view to regulating leases which are clearly unfair to the lessee.
  3. Will he also initiate discussions on this matter with State Attorneys-General so that uniformity of approach can be achieved.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I have had detailed discussions with representatives of lessee petrol resellers regarding recommendations of the Royal Commission of particular interest to them.
  3. Copies of the Royal Commission’s 4th Report have been forwarded to State Premiers for comment. Any decision to initiate discussions with the States on particular approaches to industry problems will be taken in the context of the Government’s decision regarding the Royal Commission ‘s recommendations.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Question No. 153)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has he received representations from Westinghouse Electric Corporation following notices which appeared in the Gazelle of 23 and 24 December 1976 pursuant to action under the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976. If so, what was the nature of the representations.
  2. Can he say whether Westinghouse Electric Corporation has obtained a large number of documents by way or subpoena issued on Gulf Oil, which has shares in a particular Australian mining company.
  3. What orders does he intend to issue to afford protection under the provisions of the Act to individuals who may be subject to subpoenas in relation to the United States Grand Jury investigation and the Edison action.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Price Fixing: United States Anti-Trust Laws (Question No. 154)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Can he say whether Grand Jury inquiries are at present being held in the United States of America, under that country s anti-trust laws, into price fixing by zinc and mineral sands producers and conference shipping lines.
  2. Does he propose to make orders under the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 in respect of any of the inquiries.
  3. What representations has the Government made to the United States Departments of Justice and State in respect of any of these inquiries.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Aliens Eligibility for Citizenship (Question No. 248)

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

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

How many (a) aliens and (b) Commonwealth Nationals 16 years of age and over are residentially qualified, by virtue of 3 years’ residence in Australia, to apply for the grant of Australian citizenship but have not applied for it.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. The following table shows the estimated number of aliens 16 years of age and over who were residentially qualified, by viture of 3 years’ residence in Australia, to apply for the grant of Australian citizenship but who had not done so as at 30 November 1976:
  1. Not available. As citizens of Commonwealth countries are not required by law to register on arrival in Australia in the same way as other settlers, it would not be possible to estimate accurately the number who are eligible except at the time of a national census of population.

The result of the 1976 Population Census should in due course provide the required information.

Note: In answer to Question No. 304 (Hansard, 18 August, 1976) the estimated total of aliens 16 years of age and over who were eligible to apply for the grant of Australian citizenship but had not done so at 31 May 1976, was inadvertently shown as 473 470 instead of the correct figure 437 470. The numbers of the various nationalities making up the total were correctly given.

Uranium Producers (Question No. 297)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he or officers of his Department have discussions with representatives of the Uranium Producers Forum and other uranium producers on Tuesday, 8 March 1977.
  2. If so, what was the nature of the discussions.
  3. Did the producers call for the establishment of a government marketing authority for uranium.
  4. Are any further orders proposed under the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976. If so, in respect of what proceedings are they to be made.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Standing Committee of Attorneys-General: Credit Laws Committee (Question No. 298)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Will the Credit Laws Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General be considering as part of its implementation of the Molomby Report (a) the Canadian

Bill relating to disclosure of credit rating records introduced into the Canadian House of Commons on 22 October 1976, (b) the United States Fair Credit Billing Act, (c) the United States Fair Credit Opportunity Act, (d) the United States Depository Institutions Amendment Act, (e) the United States Consumer Leasing Act, (f) the United States Equal Credit Opportunity Act, (g) the United States Consumer Credit Protection Act, (h) the Manitoba Consumer Protection Act and (i) the Manitoba Personal Property Security Act.

  1. How many times has the Credit Laws Committee met, and on what dates have these meetings taken place.
  2. When is it expected that the work of the Credit Laws Committee will be completed.
  3. Can he say whether South Australia still proposes to retain its own consumer credit legislation so that there will be a lack of uniformity between that State and the rest of Australia.
  4. Has the Credit Laws Committee had discussions with the Australian Law Reform Commission in connection with its reference on privacy. If not, why not.
  5. Has the Credit Laws Committee considered the report of the Consumer Affairs Council of the Australian Capital Territory on credit reporting. If not, why not.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Money Lenders Ordinance of Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 299)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many exemptions from registration have been granted under section 4 of the Money Lenders Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. To whom have these exemptions been granted, and upon what conditions have they been granted.
  3. How many applications for exemption have been refused.
  4. What were the grounds for refusal of the exemptions, and what are the names of the unsuccessful applicants.
  5. Was an exemption granted to Patrick-Intermarine (Aust.) Ltd on 12 July 1971 (Gazelle, 22 July 1971, page 4777).
  6. Is this company still trading following the collapse of Patrick Partners and their associated companies.
  7. Was Patrick Corporation Limited a shareholder in this company.
  8. ) Who are the other shareholders in this company.
  9. Has this company been wound up.
  10. Is this company registered or incorporated in the A.C.T.
  11. What accounts and reports have been filed by this company in the A.C.T. since incorporation.
  12. Who have been the directors of this company since incorporation.
  13. Is this company an official dealer in the short term money market.
  14. 14) Is this company registered pursuant to the Financial Corporations Act 1974.
  15. Is it proposed to revoke or rescind the exemption order given to this company if the company has been wound up or is not otherwise trading.
  16. 16) Is it a fact that, even though exemptions have been granted to merchant banks under section 4 of the Money Lenders Ordinance, they are still subject to sections 1 1 and 12 of the Ordinance which require specification of the total amount of interest or the rate of interest and a memorandum of the terms of loans to be given to borrowers.
  17. Could these provisions interfere with the dealings of merchant banks and are they more suited to consumer credit transactions.
  18. 18) How many applications have been made under section 6 of the Money Lenders Ordinance of the A.C.T., when were these applications made, what was the result of each application and what are the names of the parties involved.
  19. What is the formula for calculation of a rebate of interest under section 8 of the Money Lenders Ordinance.
  20. Is the method of calculation of interest under section 7 different from the method of calculation of rebates under section 8; if so, what are the differences and are there any proposals to make these provisions uniform.
  21. How many persons are registered as money lenders under section 9 of the Ordinance.
  22. What are the names, addresses and business names of all registered money lenders.
  23. How many prosecutions have been brought under section 14 of the Ordinance.
  24. Against whom have prosecutions been brought, when were they brought, and what was the outcome of each prosecution.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Family Court of Australia (Question No. 300)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. Are any delays occurring in the Family Court in respect of matters listed for hearing.
  2. How many days on an average must pass between the day a case is listed and the day upon which a matter comes on for hearing in each registry of the Family Court.
  3. Does he propose to use Masters instead of Judges of the Family Court to clear the backlog of listed cases.
  4. Are any new Judges to be appointed to the Family Court before the referendum on retiring ages for Federal Judges.
  5. What progress has been made in negotiations with the States over maintenance and matrimonial property legislation and a referral of these powers to the Australian Government.
  6. How many matters are listed for hearing in each registry of the Family Court and State courts exercising Federal jurisdiction and under what sections of the Family Law Act is relief sought in each of these matters.
  7. How many Judges are there of the Family Court, and what was the date of the appointment of each.
  8. How many matters have come before each Judge on each sitting day of the Family Court since it opened.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Australian Legal Aid Office (Question No. 301)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What discussions have taken place with the States concerning the dismantling of the Australian Legal Aid Office and establishment of State Legal Aid Commissions.
  2. Are negotiations with the State of Queensland at an advanced stage.
  3. Is it a fact that representatives of the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations were excluded from discussions relating to the Legal Aid Office between the Attorney-General and South Australian officials even though the South Australian officials had no objection to their presence.
  4. What safeguards are being provided for permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service whose positions are to be transferred to the States as part of the transfer of the Legal Aid Office.
  5. Is the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations involved in all stages of negotiations with the States. If not, why not.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

New Legislation: Availability of Copies (Question No. 302)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is causing the delays in the availability of new legislation including regulations.
  2. Have the staff ceilings imposed on his Department delayed proof reading of new Bills, Acts, regulations and instruments.
  3. Have any complaints been received by him or his Department about delays in the availability of new legislation and related documents. If so, how many, and when was each complaint received.
  4. Are any delays occurring at the Government Printing Office in the provision of new legislation.
  5. 5 ) Is there to be any improvement in the provision of new Bills, Acts, regulations and instruments, especially through the State offices of the Australian Government Publishing Service.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Department of the Attorney-General: Payments into Testamentary and Trust Fund (Question No. 303)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. What moneys have been paid by the AttorneyGeneral into the Testamentary and Trust Fund since section 28 of the Trustee Companies Ordinance of the Australian Capita] Territory came into force.
  2. When were each of these payments made, and what were the amounts.
  3. What statements have been delivered to the AttorneyGeneral by trustee companies giving details of unclaimed moneys since section 28 of the ordinance came into force.
  4. What unclaimed moneys have been paid to the Attorney-General by trustee companies pursuant to section 28 of the ordinance.
  5. Have any trustee companies ever been prosecuted for failure to comply with section 28 of the ordinance. If so, which companies and what penalty was imposed.
  6. Have any persons received payment of moneys pursuant to section 29 of the Trustee Companies Ordinance. If so, when, and what was the amount.
  7. Has the Attorney-General ever applied for an order of account pursuant to section 30 of the Trustee Companies Ordinance. If so, when, and what were the circumstances.
  8. What are the details contained in the declarations lodged in January 1977 by each of the companies specified in the first schedule of the Trustee Companies Ordinance pursuant to section 3 1 of the ordinance.
  9. As there is a Public Trustee to be established in the Australian Capital Territory, when will he take office and will his office succeed that of the Curator of Deceased Estates.
  10. 10) Is there to be any review of the trustee company legislation in the Australian Capital Territory. If so, what is the purpose and aim of the review.
  11. Is it proposed that the Trustee Act of New South Wales will continue to apply in the Australian Capital Territory pursuant to the provisions of the Trustee Companies Ordinance.
  12. 12 ) Are the Lunacy Act and Inebriates Act of New South Wales to continue to apply in the Australian Capital Territory; if so, why.
  13. Will the Public Trustee of the Australian Capital Territory administer the affairs of the mentally infirm residing in institutions in New South Wales having regard to the provisions of the Insane Persons and Inebriates (Committal and Detention) Ordinance and Mental Health Ordinance.
  14. What legislation regulates trustees generally and trustee companies in the Northern Territory.
  15. Is any review of trustee legislation in the Northern Territory under way or proposed. If not, why not.
  16. Will he consider a reference to the Law Reform Commission of the law of trustees including trustee companies, especially with respect to powers of investment.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Henderson Poverty Inquiry: Second Report (Question No. 304)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What proposals are there for implementing the 2nd main report of the Henderson Poverty Inquiry relating to Law and Poverty.
  2. What discussions have taken place with (a) the Department of Social Security and (b) the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs about implementation of the report.
  3. Is it proposed to establish an interdepartmental committee to consider and implement the report.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Australia-Japan Trade Law Foundation (Question No. 305)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is Mr Keith Gale, a director of the failed Gollin Holdings Ltd, also a member of the board of the Australia-Japan Trade Law Foundation; is so, from what date has he held this office.
  2. Has the Government granted the sum of $5,500 to the Foundation in each of the last 3 financial years.
  3. If so, how has the Foundation expended the moneys which have been granted to it, and has it provided details to the Attorney-General’s Department of this expenditure in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act.
  4. Has the Attorney-General at any time been a member of the board of the Foundation; if so, when.
  5. What public servants have been or are members of the board of the Foundation and what was the period of office of each.
  6. Is Mr Gale to continue as a member of the board of the Foundation.
  7. What remuneration has Mr Gale received as a member of the board of the Foundation.
  8. What are the names of all members of the board of the Foundation since its incorporation, and when has each held office.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Secret Commissions Act (Question No. 409)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) When will the review of the Secret Commissions Act and related legislation which was commenced in May 1976 be completed.
  2. Will a report of the review be tabled in the Parliament.
  3. Have consultations taken place with the Department of Industry and Commerce as pan of the review as that Department administers the Secret Commissions Act.
  4. Did the Minister for Industry and Commerce or his Department ask the Attorney-General ‘s Department to conduct the review of the Secret Commissions Act.
  5. Did the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations establish an inter-governmental group to prepare an agreement to prevent bribery and corrupt practices in international commercial transactions in August 1976.
  6. If so, is Australia a member of this inter-governmental group or has it attended any of its meetings as an observer.
  7. How many times and on what dates has this intergovernmental group met.
  8. Has Australia been represented at all or any of these meetings; if so, which meetings.
  9. What has occurred at each of these meetings, and when is it likely that the proposed agreement will be finalised.
  10. Can he say whether the United States Government supports the proposed agreement.
  11. What is the attitude of the Australian Government to the agreement.
  12. Can he say whether any legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress to eliminate corrupt, practices in business dealings with governments. If so, has this legislation come into force and what is its effect.
  13. Was Australia represented as an observer at the conference of criminological research institutes, convened in Strasbourg in November 1976 by the Council of Europe, which considered economic crime.
  14. 14) Will the recommendations of this conference be considered with a view to the introduction of legislation to provide greater regulation of economic crime in Australia.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Restrictive Business Practices (Question No. 410)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Australian Financial Review of 28 February 1977 that the United States Department of Justice has asked the Australian Government for a meeting to discuss Australia’s refusal to co-operate with its inquiry into alleged uranium price fixing. If so, is the report accurate.
  2. Has the Australian Government yet responded to any request from the Department of Justice. If not, why not.
  3. Has the Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development prepared guidelines on regulation of restrictive business practices which are supported by the United States Government.
  4. If so, do these guidelines entail recognition of foreign legislation regulating restrictive business practices.
  5. What is the Australian Government’s attitude to the guidelines prepared by the Organisation and does it conflict with that or the United States Government.
  6. Is the Australian Government proposing to re-open discussions with the United States Government with a view to effecting a treaty of mutual co-operation relating to restrictive business practices and anti-trust activities referred to in his answer to question No. 1693 (Hansard, 9 December 1976, page 3708).
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Deparetment. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Legal Aid (Question No. 471)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Law Council of Australia indicated to the Government that it believes that the Federal Government should still be involved in provision of legal aid services. If so, will he table any letters or other documents relating to this for the information of members. If not, why not.
  2. Was a report prepared by the Director of the Australian Legal Aid Office on Federal Legal Aid in Australia which was presented as a paper at the Colloquium on Legal Aid held in London in 1976. If so, when will this paper be tabled in the Parliament.
  3. 3) If the paper is not to be tabled, what is the reason.
  4. Has the Government considered the establishment of a body similar to the American Federal Legal Services Corporation to provide legal aid in Australia, as proposed by Attorney-General Enderby, which is both well founded and has independence from the Government service instead of establishing legal commissions in each State. If not, why not.
  5. 5 ) Can he say whether President Carter has indicated his support for the Legal Service Corporation so that every citzen has an equal access to justice.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Law Reform: Class Actions (Question No. 472)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 July 1977:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the Uniform Class Actions Act or Rule approved by the United States National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws at its annual meeting in Atlanta in 1 976.
  2. If so, is this draft legislative proposal being considered by the Law Reform Commission in connection with its reference on class actions.
  3. Has his attention also been drawn to the recent American Supreme Court cases of Zaha v. International Paper Co. 414 U.S. 291 (1973) and Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacquelin 4 1 7 U.S. 1 56 ( 1 974).
  4. If so, can he say whether the effect of these cases is to severely limit the availability of class actions in United States Federal Courts, causing class litigants to turn to the State Courts for group relief.
  5. Are the implications of these United States cases also being considered by the Law Reform Commission.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Piracy Laws (Question No. 511)

Mr Fry:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that certain legislation relating to piracy dating back to the time of Henry VIII still applies m the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
  2. Did Attorney-General Murphy propose a new modification of laws relating to offences at sea. If so, what is the current state of work on this matter.
  3. What imperial and State Acts relating to offences at sea still apply in the A.C.T. and the N.T.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propse to answer it.

Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory: Imperial Statute of Limitations (Question No. 512)

Mr Fry:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. Does the Imperial Statute of Limitations 1823 still apply in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
  2. If so, are there any proposals to replace this legislation taking into account the work of (a) the English Law Commission, (b) the Scottish Law Commission, (c) the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, (d) the Queensland Law Reform Commission, (e) the South Australian Law Reform Committee and (0 the Alberta Law Reform Commission.
  3. If so, will the new legislation also take into account the situation arising at present where a person is prevented from bringing an action if the injury or disease suffered does not become apparent until after the expiration of the limitation period.
  4. Will he consider referring the subject of limitations of actions to the Law Reform Commission for investigation and report.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Law Reform: Class Actions (Question No. 524)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. I ) Has his attention been drawn to the remarks of Mr John Llewellyn of the Australian Finance Conference concerning reported class actions appearing in the Age of 22 March 1977.

    1. If so, have these remarks been referred to the Law Reform Commission for consideration in connection with its reference on class actions.
    2. Has the Australian Finance Conference or any finance company or any person made representations to the Australian Government, any of its Ministers or departmental officers seeking withdrawal of the reference on class actions or non-implementation of the forthcoming recommendations of the Law Reform Commission.
    3. Has Judge White’s Report to the South Australian Government on consumer legislation been referred to the Law Reform Commission insofar as it refers to class action.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Australian Legal Aid Office (Question No. 525)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the report in the Brisbane Sunday Mail of 6 March 1 977 of remarks made by Mr Lickiss, the Queensland Minister for Justice.
  2. If so, have talks taken place with the Australian Government regarding a take-over of the Australian Legal Aid Office by the Queensland Government.
  3. Does the Australian Government want the States to take over the responsibility for both the Family Law Court and the Australian Legal Aid Office.
  4. Has his attention also been drawn to an article entitled ‘The end of legal aid’ appearing in the APSA Review February/March 1977.
  5. If so, are the discussions held with the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations on 20 December 1976 accurately reported; if not, what is the position.
  6. Has his attention also been drawn to the letter from the Victorian Attorney-General published in the Age of 19 March 1977 concerning legal aid.
  7. If so, what is the precise state of negotiations with the Victorian Government over legal aid as it is still proposed to establish a State Legal Aid Commission in Victoria.
  8. Has his attention also been drawn to the report in the Age of 22 March 1 977 of remarks by Mr Justice Emery concerning delays in the Family Court.
  9. If so, is the report correct and are the figures of cases awaiting hearing accurate; if not, what are the correct figures.
  10. 10) What action is being taken to remove these delays.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Imperial Foreign Tribunal Evidence Act and Evidence by Commission Act (Question No. 539)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 March 1 977:

In relation to the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976, is it proposed to introduce any legislation to replace the Imperial Foreign Tribunal Evidence Act 18S6 and Evidence by Commission Act 18S9 as has occurred recently in the United Kingdom.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of my Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Public Service: Counter Staff (Question No. 619)

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

am asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 1 9 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Which departments are members of the interdepartmental committee on the supply of over-the-counter services by public service staff (Hansard, 22 March, page 407).
  2. ) What are its terms of reference.
  3. 3 ) When was it established.
  4. When will it report.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Capital Territory, Employment and Industrial Relations, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Social Security, Veterans’ Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Northern Territory, together with the Australian Legal Aid Office, the Public Service Board, the Australian Taxation Office, the Health Insurance Commission and the Australian Postal Commission.
  2. Examine and submit to me a report, with options and recommendations, on improvement of the quality of services provided to the general public by counter staff in Commonwealth Departments.
  3. The Committee first met on 1 S December 1 976.
  4. The Committee has recently reported.

Immigration: Mr Renzo Di Piramo (Question No. 744)

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

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

On what dates did Mr Renzo Di Piramo (a) seek and (b) receive (i) Australian citizenship and (ii) an Australian passport.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. (i) Mr Di Piramo ‘s application is not dated but it was received in my Department’s Citizenship Branch on 10 March 1976.
  2. (ii) 6 August 1976.
  3. and (b) (ii) I am informed that Mr Di Piramo applied to the Department of Foreign Affairs for an Australian passport on 6 August 1 976 and received it on the same day.

VHF FM Broadcasting (Question No. 814)

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

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. Which departments and authorities are members of the interdepartmental committee set up to consider the recommendations of the Inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting System (Green Report) involving the development of VHF FM broadcasting.
  2. ) What are the committee’s terms of reference.
  3. ) When was it established.
  4. When will it report.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The Postal and Telecommunications Department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Finance.
  2. Present a paper which brings together the issues raised in the Green Report; the issues which require decisions from the Government; the options available to the Government in respect of these issues, and proposals for the handling of the report by the Government
  3. 12 October 1976.
  4. It is anticipated that the report will be finalised within two weeks.

Mr Douglas Charles Campbell (Question No. 865)

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

am asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. In what circumstances did his long time professional and personal friend Mr Douglas Charles Campbell (Hansard 5 May 1977, page 1683) work for him in his electorate office in Tamworth at any time in the last 6 months.
  2. What position has Mr Campbell held in the Country Party in or covering his electorate in the last 3 years.
  3. When did he learn that Mr Campbell had been severely reprimanded and suspended from practice as a solicitor for 6 months from 23 December 1976 for wilful perjury in that he had omitted jewelry from the stamp affidavit in an estate which he swore to be worth $438,000 and which, apart from bequests of $ 1 3,000 was left to him.
  4. Does he know the valuation of the paintings and jewellery which Mr Campbell omitted from his stamp affidavit.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) None; at no time has Mr Campbell worked for me.
  2. None.
  3. On or about Christmas Day 1976.
  4. No.

Heads of Mission: Local Allowances (Question No. 79)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

What are the local allowances paid to each Head of Mission and what is the component of such local allowances to cover the employment of such persons as butlers, valets, chefs, kitchen staff, waiters and waitresses, ‘nannies’, governesses or tutors, commissionaires, official hostesses, watchmen, guards, chauffeurs, gardeners and any other staff employed at the taxpayers’ expense in each country in which Australia is represented by an Ambassador, High Commissioner or Consul-General.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The terms of the question show that there was a hitherto undetected ambiguity in the reply to Question No. 1305 as printed in Hansard of 3 December 1976. The earlier question in effect referred to all Australia-based staff overseas. I regret that my reply could be and was misinterpreted to mean that the local allowances of Heads of Mission have a component built into them to cover employment of domestic assistance. Whilst this is the system applicable to other officers it is not the case with Heads of Mission. Instead they are reimbursed for the costs of employing domestic assistance to levels approved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. To extract details of the levels and cost of domestic assistance employed by each Head of Mission, even within the more relevant of the numerous categories cited in the question, would take more time and effort than is considered justified.

The attached schedule lists the rates of local allowances paid to each Head of Mission.

Tourists/Travellers to Australia (Question No. 131)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What is the projected increase in tourists/travellers to Australia from (a) Europe, (b) Britain, (c) the United States of America, (d) Japan and (e) New Zealand during 1977.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Australian Tourist Commission has estimated the increase in the number of tourists/travellers to Australia for 1977 as (a) Europe (excluding Britain )-7,600, (b) Bri-tain-4,000, (c) The United States of America- 1 1,500, (d) Japan-3,500 and (e) New Zealand-8,000.

The Country Hour: Guest Speakers (Question No. 384)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

On how many occasions has the Victorian edition of the ABC program The Country Hour had as speakers,

Members of the Federal Parliament,

Members of any State Parliament,

Federal or State office holders of

the Liberal Party

the National Country Party and

the Australian Labor Party in the last year.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Five.
  2. Eighteen.
  3. The ABC does not keep records as to whether speakers are office holders of political parties.

NATO and Warsaw Pact (Question No. 594)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Did he state on 15 March 1977 that the Government does not accept that it is inappropriate for Australia to comment on the military balance between the NATO and Warsaw Pact powers.
  2. ) Are there continuing negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries aimed at achieving mutual force reductions in Europe.
  3. Does the Government support the aims of the MFR negotiations. If not, why not.
  4. If the Government supports the aims of the negotiations, will he (a) reveal what steps the Government has taken to encourage a successful conclusion to the MFR negotiations, (b) reveal what future steps it has in train to the same end, (c) give an undertaking that the Government will not, by inflammatory statements, contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust between the superpowers, especially in a European context and (d) reveal what, in the Government’s view, would constitute an acceptable conclusion to the MFR negotiations.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The Government would welcome an agreement for force reductions in Europe which established a satisfactory balance between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces, thus contributing to stability and security. Australia is not a party to these negotiations.

Indian Ocean: Superpower Forces (Question No. 595)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government support a stabilisation of superpower forces in the Indian Ocean at the lowest possible level.
  2. If so, does the term ‘lowest possible level’ include a total withdrawal of superpower naval forces from the Indian Ocean and a shutdown of superpower naval bases or facilities in the region. If not, what does the term mean.
  3. Does the Government support President Carter’s initiative seeking the removal of superpower forces from the Indian Ocean. If so, what steps (a) have been and ( b) will be taken, to lend effective assistance to the implementation of this initiative.
  4. If the Government does not support the initiative, what alternative approaches to the question of superpower forces in the Indian Ocean are considered open to it.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are:

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3) and (4) President Carter has proposed negotiations between his country and the Soviet Union on mutual military limitations in the Indian Ocean. The only country which is in a position to ‘lend effective assistance to the implementation of this initiative’ is the Soviet Union. When

United States Secretary of State, Mr Cyrus Vance, was in Moscow in March the 2 countries agreed to form a working group to discuss possible military limitations in the Indian Ocean. It is of course early days to judge yet what are the prospects for these discussions, let alone what might be their outcome. Questions about the level of forces and capabilities on which the United States and Soviet Union might be able to reach agreement or about a role for Australia in implementing an agreement between them are premature and hypothetical at this stage.

Canberra Mosque (Question No. 676)

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

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

Has his Department (a) prepared a report or (b) made representations on the refusal by the Minister for the Capital Territory to grant a lease for the extensions which the Islamic Society of the A.C.T. proposed to make to the Canberra Mosque?

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. The Department of Foreign Affairs has, at my request, kept me fully informed of developments;
  2. No.

Home Building Industry (Question No. 688)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Will any increase in duty on imported dies increase the cost of home building which the Government is so anxious to avoid.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the adverse repercussions to the building industry being caused by the obvious drawn-out period encompassed by the Temporary Assistance Authority inquiry and its deleterious effect on the housing industry in general.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The effect on home building costs of an increased duty on roof tiles will be negligible since very few imported roof tiles are used in the Australian home building industry. In the case of ceramic tiles, even if all the increased duty were passed on to the consumer, the overall effect on home building costs would be negligible since imported dies constitute a very small fraction of total costs.
  2. This is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who I understand is preparing a submission to Cabinet following his receipt of the report by the Temporary Assistance Authority.

Medibank: Bulk-billing (Question No. 714)

Mr Bryant:
WILLS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

Will he provide the number, names and addresses of medical practitioners in the Victorian municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick who bulk-bill to Medibank.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Doctors are free to adopt whatever method of billing they choose for whichever patients they wish. Those doctors who bulk bill are not bound to do so for all their patients nor are they required to continue to do so in respect of those patients for whom they bulk bill. Consequently any information that could be provided in relation to your question, apart from not being comprehensive, may also be misleading in that it may have little relevance to the true picture at any point in time.

Government Inquiries: North-west Region of Melbourne (Question No. 718)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, on notice, on 27 April 1 977:

Have there been any Government inquiries or interdepartmental committees that have investigated the northwest region of Melbourne, or any of the problems that pertain to a pan of the north-west region of Melbourne.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

Not to the knowledge of my Department.

Health Insurance (Question No. 761)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of the Australian population is now covered by (a) Medibank, (b) Medibank Private and (c) other private medical and hospital benefit funds.
  2. Are these proportions available for each State and Territory. If so, what are they.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) The number of persons who are covered for health insurance by Medibank Standard cannot be calculated until it is possible to determine what proportion of the population have opted to be covered by private health insurance.

    1. As Medibank Private operates on a competitive basis in the private health insurance industry, it could be inimical to its interests to release details of its operations, including membership, in advance of its competitors.
    2. My Department does not yet have comprehensive data on the membership of private health insurance organizations under the new arrangements. Present indications are that it will be at least June before complete details are available.
  2. No-see above.

East Timor (Question No. 811)

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

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

What was the itinerary of the two officers from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta on their visit to East Timor to gain first hand information about the use of the Australian contribution to the Indonesian Red Cross for humanitarian assistance in East Timor (Hansard, 28 April 1977, page 1341).

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The two officers from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta arrived in Dili on 27 April 1977. On 28 April they flew to Viqueque Los Palos Fatumaca and Baucau. On 29 April they flew to Same, Maliana Balibo and Bobinaro. On 30 April they flew to Liquica and Dili before returning to Jakarta.

Pensions: Means Test (Question No. 823)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

What has been the maximum weekly income allowable for the receipt of ( a ) single and ( b ) married pension for each alteration to the pension scale since 1971.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Before 25 November 1976, the means test which applied to age and invalid pensions took account of both income and property. Since that date, income only has been taken into account. The following table shows the various limits, that have applied since 1971, at which a person’s or a couple’s pension entitlement would be extinguished by other income received, assuming that entitlement would not have been affected by property at any point:

Before 27 September 1972, the weekly income that could be received without affecting pension was S 10 for a single pensioner and $17.00 for a married couple. From 27 September 1972 these amounts were increased to $20 and $34.50 respectively.

Pensions: Issue of Cheques (Question No. 825)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1) What is the value of the smallest fortnightly age pension cheque, and how many cheques for this sum are issued each fortnight.
  2. What additional incomes are earned by recipients of these cheques.
  3. How many fortnightly pension cheques, valued at $5 or less, are issued.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Social Services Act provides that the amount of a fortnightly instalment of pension shall be ascertained by dividing the annual rate by 26. Where the amount of the fortnightly instalment so ascertained is less than $1, it shall be increased to $1. No statistics are held on the numbers of fortnightly pension cheques issued for specific rates.
  2. At the present rate of pension, a single pensioner, without dependent children, whose income (apart from pension) is between $113.25 a week and the disqualifying limit of $1 14.20 a week is entitled to a pension of $1 a fortnight. Similarly a married pensioner couple, without dependent children, whose combined income (apart from pension) is between $189.60 a week and the disqualifying limit of $191.50 a week are entitled to receive a pension of $1 a fortnight each..
  3. As stated in ( 1 ), no statistics are held on numbers of pension cheques issued for specific amounts. However, prior to the recent pension increase on 12 May 1 977 it is estimated that 1 120 pension cheques valued at $5 or less were issued each fortnight. Following that date it is estimated that there are 80 such cheques.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 May 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770525_reps_30_hor105/>.