House of Representatives
27 October 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 2473

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

English Classes for Migrants

To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

We, the undersigned citizens and/or taxpayers of Australia, speaking for ourselves and on behalf of the many who cannot become citizens because of their inability to speak English, request the House of Representatives to give immediate attention to the totally inadequate provision of English classes for migrants by the Australian Government.

Our incention is to impress upon the House that inability to speak English means discrimination- discrimination in the field of employment, in education and in social and political life.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Chipp and Mr Graham.

Petitions received.

Sales Tax

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:

The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act imposes a tax of15 per cent on lawnmowers and edgers whereas other household goods are taxable at a rate of 2½ percent.

That is a distinct anomaly particularly as similar items for household use such as vacuum cleaners, carpet sweepers and brooms are only taxable at 2½ per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Third Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act be amended to include lawnmowers and lawn edgers and thus taxable at the rate of per cent.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Jenkins and Mr Keith Johnson.

Petitions received.

Broadcasting and Television Programs

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 because television and radio

  1. affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national ABC, and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. b ) for a ‘dual system of regulation ‘ enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control,
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

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

Petitions received.

Income Tax : Volunteer Firemen

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned volunteer firemen attached to the New South Wales Fire Brigade Service respectfully showeth:

That the volunteer firemen of New South Wales Fire Brigades are performing an essential community service in suburban and country towns by providing low cost fire protection and in sacrificing their leisure and rest hours to perform this essential service, are being subjected to severe financial loss by having to pay income tax on two incomes which under the present taxation system discourages most individuals from having two jobs.

That the present situation has resulted in the resignation of a large number of volunteer firemen because of the effects of taxation, leaving a number of fire brigades under strength and a reluctance of potential recruits to pay excessive taxation.

That this growing problem could be effectively dealt with by granting taxation concessions to volunteer firemen in the State of New South Wales similar to those being received by members of the Citizens Military Forces.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will urge the Government to review the Taxation Act to exempt the earnings of volunteer firemen in the State of New South Wales from income tax, or give consideration to separate assessment of earnings and so protect the future of the volunteer fire service in New South Wales.

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

Welfare, Health and Public Education

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

That we wish to register our strongest objection to any proposed cutbacks in the 1977-78 Federal Budget in the areas of welfare, health and public education. We request that the levels of expenditure in welfare, health and public education be maintained at current levels of expenditure or increased in levels of expenditure in real terms.

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

Petition received.

Canberra: Unimproved Land Values

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

  1. The present method of valuing land for rates is inequitable in that ratepayers are paying greatly varying rates for essentially the same municipal services.
  2. Ratepayers in inner Canberra are subsidising municipal services in the newer suburbs.
  3. Since valuations were carried out in January 1976 the housing market and resultant values have become severely depressed.
  4. The decline in demand and consequent drop in unimproved land value in the newer suburbs resulting in the increase in unimproved land values in the inner suburbs has been brought about by the Government’s economic policies applying to Canberra.
  5. The steep increase in rates is directly counter to the Government’s stated policy of reducing prices and incomes as expressed by its strong support for the wages and prices freeze ‘ earlier this year.
  6. Purpose clauses contained in residential leases are ignored when determining valuations for rates.
  7. The percentage increase in rates in many instances is far greater than the percentage increase in real incomes.
  8. Many bona fide long term residents living in inner Canberra living on fixed or low incomes may be forced to sell their houses and move to outer suburbs away from familiar surroundings and friends. Others, in order to meet their rate payments, may have to reduce their standard of living.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives ensure that:

  1. The Minister for the Capital Territory honour the Government’s commitment to reducing costs by substantially reducing unimproved land values particularly in the inner suburbs where housing is used for bona fide residential purposes.
  2. The Minister for the Capital Territory urgently implement a more equitable means of valuing which relate rates to the costs of municipal services provided to each ratepayer.

And your petitioners as in duty bound do humbly pray. by Mr Fry.

Petition received.

Hunter Region Working Women’s Group

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

There be continuing and expanding funding for the Hunter Region Working Women’s Group so that it can continue to provide child care, legal aid, community health, welfare and educational services to the women of the Hunter Region.

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

Petition received.

Whaling

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:

Our concern at the dangerously low world whale populations. That Australia is one of the few countries still actively engaged in whaling, particularly concerns and disappoints us.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you take action to end Australia’s participation in the needless slaughtering of whales by calling a halt to commercial whaling in Australia and by observing the 10 year moratorium called for by the United Nations.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Assistance

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

That the decision to terminate tertiary fees and living allowances for students of non-profit business and tertiary colleges from1 January 1978 will

  1. deprive many students of the opportunity to qualify for commercial employment because of their inability to meet the fees charged or to sustain themselves during the period of enrolment.
  2. substantially reduce enrolments in non-profit tertiary colleges threatening some with closure.
  3. add up to 10,000 students at present attending such colleges to the ranks of the unemployed and threaten the livelihood of approximately 450 teachers and other staff.

The petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take immediate steps to reverse the decision to withdraw support for the non-profit tertiary colleges.

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

Petition received.

Private Nursing Homes: Pensioner Patients

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

That many pensioners who are holders of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of Private Nursing Homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.

Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the Private Nursing Homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.

Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laid down adhered to.

That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.

That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, are in many cases living in extreme poverty.

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

  1. . Make sure that subsidies paid to Private Nursing Homes are such that each pensioner holding a Pensioners Health

Benefit Card will pay the Private Nursing Home no more than the statutory minimum patient contribution, which will allow six dollars per week to be retained by the pensioner patient for their personal use.

  1. That a pensioner holding a Pensioner Health Benefit Card shall have a telephone installed free of charge, or at a very nominal charge.
  2. That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on, shall receive a subsidy to assist them. The subsidy to be governed by a means test.

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

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. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. b ) 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; and
  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.

page 2475

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would preclude-

The honourable member for Mackellar laying forthwith on the table of the House a more legible copy of the document already tabled by the Leader of the House on 21 September 1977 as recorded on page 1 4 1 8 of the daily Hansard;

The honourable member for Mackellar moving forthwith that both the original and the more legible copy be printed: and

The Leader of the Opposition speaking at a subsequent time of his own choosing for a period not exceeding one hour in relation to the matters referred to in the said document.

Mr Speaker, in moving this motion, I draw attention to the most serious matter which is standing in front of this country because an election is pending. In so doing I want to say that the Leader of the Opposition has not given any credible explanation of the events which are recorded in the Press -

Mr Keating:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, we are not here to be harangued by this lunatic every morning.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Keating:

– I submit to you that the honourable gentleman has made his point -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will remain silent. The honourable member for Blaxland will withdraw the statement he made in relation to the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr Uren:

– It is a full moon, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark.

Mr Uren:

– Withdraw that it is a full moon, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that if he attempts to make fun of the Standing Orders I will deal with him without hesitation. I am asking him to withdraw the implication he made in relation to the honourable member for Mackellar. He knows full well what it was. If he does not withdraw it immediately I will deal with him immediately.

Mr Uren:

– I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Cohen) negatived:

That the honourable member for Mackellar be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I thank the House. I think this is a most serious matter because of the pending election. Subsequently to the last election various -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will remain relevant only to the question of the suspension of Standing Orders- as to why consideration of this matter is urgent.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Exactly, Sir. I am trying to show the urgency of it in relation to the coming election because there is -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is out of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-This is the main urgency, Sir. The main urgency is that certain matters should be ventilated and decided in the public eye before the public has to vote at the next election.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr WENTWORTH:

-The Leader of the Opposition -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will remain silent. There is nothing to mdicate that an election is imminent.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I stand corrected, Sir. It is obvious, Sir, that these are matters of importance and whether or not there be an election, they have to be decided in the public interest. The Leader of the Opposition -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes. The question of urgency -

Mr WENTWORTH:

– … has been charged -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Mackellar not to speak while I am speaking or I will deal with him. The question of urgency is what the honourable gentleman must establish. If he does not argue the urgency exclusively, I will rule him out of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, Sir. I urge that it is completely urgent that the Leader of the Opposition, if he is to remain in his position, should be able to clear bis name.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. He is out of order.

page 2476

GENERAL ELECTION

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Government has recommended to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral that the House of Representatives be dissolved on 10 November next and that a general election for the members of the House of Representatives be held on Saturday, 10

December. His Excellency has accepted my recommendation.

The places of one half of the members of the Senate will become vacant on 30 June next. If their places are to be filled by 1 July 1978, an election to fill them must be held no later than May. Under the second paragraph of section 13 of the Constitution an election to fill vacant Senate places may be held within one year before the places become vacant. Members of this House were elected on 13 December 1975. Their term expires on 16 February 1979. However, section 28 of the Constitution enables the House of Representatives to be dissolved before then. It was the general practice prior to 1963 to hold elections for the House of Representatives and for half the Senate at the same time. Indeed, in 1955 the Governor-General, Sir William Slim, on the advice of the then Prime Minister, dissolved the House of Representatives much earlier than its three-year term to synchronise the elections for the two Houses. In that case the election for both Houses was held some 18 months after the previous election for the House of Representatives.

In May this year the Government put to the people a referendum proposal which was intended to ensure that elections for both Houses would have to be held simultaneously. The proposal was supported by all political parties in the Parliament and the arguments in favour of it were widely canvassed. It was approved by a significant majority- 62 per cent- of all voters and by a majority of voters in three States. It is the view of the Government that at the next election for half the Senate an election should also be held for the House of Representatives. This clearly accords with the view of the majority of the Australian people as reflected in the referendum vote. It is a view shared by the Opposition. Indeed, on a Monday Conference interview on 1 November 1976 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) thought that it would be entirely appropriate to have a combined half Senate and House of Representatives election at the end of 1977. 1 quote the words he uttered almost exactly a year ago:

In a year’s time, which I would think would be about the earliest that there could be an election, although quite a likely time for the election, it would be a perfectly reasonable time to have a half Senate election and one could have the whole of the House of Representatives at the same time to synchronise the elections.

Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition. If the elections are not held together it will mean that there must be an election for half the Senate at least by May 1978, an election for the House of Representatives before April 1979, another election for half the Senate before July 1981 and so on- a major Federal election every one or two years. A situation in which a government is constantly concerned with the holding of elections is not conducive to sound government and hence is not in the public interest. If the elections for both Houses are to be synchronised, the question arises as to when they should be held. In practical terms this means: Should they be held in December this year, or before the end of May next year? The Government has come to the conclusion that the elections for both Houses should be held in December 1977, and I have recommended accordingly to His Excellency.

Mr Bryant:

– Do you think that Wannon is safe?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It is appropriate that I should tell the House what considerations have led the Government to this decision. At the time the Government was elected in December 1975 Australia was in a state of severe depression marked by rapid inflation, rapidly rising unemployment and declining output. Since that election the Government has pursued policies designed to correct the situation. These policies have required steady and resolute action. There are now encouraging signs that they are succeeding. The economy is strengthening, there is now indisputable evidence that we are winning the fight against inflation. Interest rates are falling for the first time in years. Investment is rising and confidence is returning.

Mr Bryant:

– I think that confidence is returning because he is going.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills has kept up continual interjections. After the statement is finished I will ask for a withdrawal of certain of them. In the meantime I call upon him to remain silent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

- Mr Speaker, generally the people of Australia have an opportunity only of hearing how the Opposition behaves. On this occasion they will also have an opportunity of seeing how it behaves. If they need any additional stimulus to a proper judgment, that will certainly provide it.

The conditions under which real economic growth can proceed are being restored and the Government takes much satisfaction from these encouraging developments. Nevertheless, there is still much to be done. The reduction in the rate of inflation, the achievement of real economic growth and the progressive reduction of unemployment, which is a vital part of the Government’s objective, can be sustained only by the continuation of these policies. A fundamental requirement for their success is an atmosphere of certainty and confidence in the Australian community. We have acted firmly to make sure that that confidence continues to return. To have further progress Australians must be convinced that the current economic recovery will continue, not just for months but for a number of years ahead. While uncertainty as to an election persists, investment is likely to be held back, confidence could be eroded, and a significant growth in employment opportunities is unlikely. All this is highly undesirable at a time when school leavers will shortly be seeking to enter the work force. An election in December will provide an early opportunity to end election speculation and the resulting uncertainty as to the policies that will be followed after that election. It will enable the Government to seek from the people an expression of their will.

Let me also make it clear that an election in December would be in keeping with the pattern over many years for elections to be held for half the Senate in the latter months of the calendar year. In fact, December would be the usual time for a Senate election to take place. Since 1949, and leaving aside double dissolutions, elections for half the Senate have been held in November or December on seven occasions and in May on only one occasion. For the reasons I have stated, there is ample justification for both elections to be held together at this time. The timetable I have proposed to His Excellency is as follows:

Issue of writs- 10 November 1977

Close of nominations- 1 8 November 1 977

Polling date- 10 December 1977

Return of writs- on or before 8 February 1978.

His Excellency has agreed to communicate this timetable to State Governors with a view to adopting it for elections for senators in each of the States. When replies have been received from the States, I shall inform the House.

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

– by leave- At last the farce has ended. Since August, when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) told the editor of the Australian that he might ‘spring an election’- interpreted by that gentleman as a Spring electionthe Australian economy and the Australian political system have been needlessly subjected to the stresses and uncertainty deliberately created by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself and his office, acting under his authority, have deliberately fuelled the speculation and deepened the uncertainty. What a charade it has been! The weeks of rumour and speculation culminated in the Nareen spectacular last Sunday. There was an urgent summons to the inner seven and heartburning amongst the senior Ministers for whom the bell did not toll- the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), the Minister for Defence (MrKillen) -

Mr Killen:

– I was playing golf.

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

– You were spending your time better. Also excluded was the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs ( Mr Fife ), the self-proclaimed senior member for New South Wales. There were dramatic dashes across the continent at the taxpayers’ expense, not in VIP aircraft but in aircraft specially chartered with, of course, government warrants, all converging on the western district of Victoria, a natural habitat. In characteristic fashion the lord of the manor lorded it over the serfs. As a result we have had this week the ultimate refinement in election rumour mongering. There has been speculation not just on the election date but speculation on the date the election date would be announced. The uncertainty deliberately created by the Prime Minister by his pathetic cat and mouse game has been economically damaging and damaging to sound and stable administration.

No public service can operate effectively in the atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty which has now prevailed for more than a month. The Prime Minister could have ended it with a sentence, to use his own words when, for the first time, he stabbed the Leader of his Party in the back six years ago. He chose rather to continue his cat and mouse game. It was a game played not against his political opponents; he was playing cat and mouse with the Australian community, not least with his Party’s traditional supporters in the business community. All that the Prime Minister has achieved so far as the Labor Party is concerned is to get us off to a flying start. He created an immediacy, and urgency, for the organisation of a campaign which could not have been achieved in a normal mid-term year. We thank the Prime Minister for it. His childish charade has damaged the Australian community; it has not damaged the Australian Labor Party.

The Australian people will place only one interpretation on the Prime Minister’s decision. When all the confusion created by the Prime Minister is swept aside, it becomes clear that there is one reason and one reason only for wanting an election now rather than at the proper time- nearer the term which the Prime Minister demanded from the Australian people less than two years ago. The reason is that next year the economy will deteriorate even further. One of the Government’s own economic advisers, Professor Warren Hogan, has predicted half a million unemployed by the middle of next year. The most optimistic forecast puts unemployment next year no lower than 450,000. The appalling prospects for 100,000 school leavers will have become not just a threat but a grim reality- scores of thousands of young Australians with their career opportunities dashed at the very outset of their working lives. Production will decline even further. The false dawn of the September quarter consumer price index figures will have faded.

In an address to the convocation of the Australian National University a week ago Professor Warren Hogan pointed out that far from being won, the battle against inflation, or rather the Government’s policies, had inflicted profound, perhaps permanent, damage on the economy, and that far from the September CPI figures being a sign of recovery they are the proof of deep economic sickness. The September figures are not a tonic; they are a symptom of disease.

It will indeed be seen that the Government’s economic policies are working- they are working to put further thousands of Australians out of work and to delay further any hopes of economic recovery. The desire for a premature election is the most complete and open admission there could possibly be that the Government has failed and that it knows it has failed. If the Prime Minister believed for a minute that his economic policies were working properly, why on earth would he want to risk all now to place 30 or 40 of his supine supporters in jeopardy? Obviously if he believed that the economy was recovering, if he believed he had really beaten inflation, he would have waited till the proper time and reaped the political rewards.

It is all too transparent. Blind Freddie can see it. And the people of Australia will certainly see through it and make their judgment accordingly. To seek a renewed mandate in December is the clearest possible admission that this Government has failed utterly to carry out the mandate for recovery which it claimed less than two years ago. And now it seeks a mandate for even higher unemployment. It has already achieved a rise of 32 per cent in unemployment since it was installed in office. It now seeks a mandate for an even deeper recession.

The justification for a December election rather than a May election given by the Prime Minister now and hinted for some weeks past is that he is heeding the call by the majority of the Australian people last May for simultaneous elections. Last May 62 per cent of Australian electors supported the proposal that whenever there was an election for the House of Representatives there should also be an election for half the Senate. This great majority showed that the electors wanted not only the elections for both Federal Houses to be held at the same time, but also the terms of both Houses to commence at the same time.

That is the great difference from the times when Menzies used to have elections for the House of Representatives in December and for half of the Senate, although half of the Senate would not take office until the following July. The position has been changed in the most convincing and authentic way- by the people. Some 62 per cent of the people have said that they want not only elections to be simultaneous but also that they want the Houses of Parliament to be contemporary.

The result of the Prime Minister’s rush to judgment before next year’s jobs crisis and economic decline is that the incoming government will, for the first seven months of its term, face a Senate elected two years ago. When the new Senate is seated it will be a Senate reflecting a view already seven months old. The only proper time for an election which would give expression to the people’s demand for both simultaneous elections and a contemporary Parliament is May next. The people will clearly see why the Prime Minister is flouting their wish for the Houses as well as the elections to be synchronised. It is a desperate attempt to get in before the crunch next year.

The people will not be hoodwinked this time. In particular this time they will subject the Prime Minister’s policy speech to the closest scrutiny, a scrutiny which they were unable to give to his policy speech last time. They now know the worth of a promise from this Prime Minister. This is the Prime Minister who said in his policy speech two years ago: ‘Only under a LiberalNational Country Party Government will there be jobs for all who want to work’. This is the Prime Minister who said in his policy speech two years ago: ‘We have a comprehensive strategy to restore prosperity’, and who said: ‘Spending on essential education, health and welfare programs will be maintained’. This is the Prime Minister who declared: ‘We will maintain Medibank’, and who said: ‘We will continue urban programs’. This is the Prime Minister who promised: ‘We will work positively in cooperation with trade unionists’. This is the Prime Minister who promised: ‘The Government will support wage indexation’. This is the Prime Minister who promised: ‘We will be generous to those who cannot get a job’. This is the Prime Minister who said: ‘A Liberal National Country Party Government will initiate a new deal for migrants ‘; who said: ‘We will maintain present levels of assistance to Aborigines’; who said: ‘We shall ensure no person is denied legal aid because of lack of means’; and who said: ‘Only under a Liberal-National Country Party Government will there be a return to business confidence’.

As a result of this decision Australia is to have its fourth House of Representatives election in five years. This is symptomatic of a political system in a deepening sense of crisis. These intolerable stresses to the stability of parliamentary democracy have been imposed entirely by the action of conservatives, the self-proclaimed upholders of stability, the self-ordained champions of the system. The largest single cause of this instability, the chief architect of the collapse of the system has been throughout that periodall those five years- and still remains the present Prime Minister. Not the least important task of the Labor Party is to stop this man breaking up our nation, a man who by his obsessions and his schoolboy prejudices and obsessive psychology has divided this country class against class, section against section, region against region in a way never before attempted in Australia’s history.

Mr Chipp:

– I seek leave to make a statement on the subject of the general election.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Hotham has made a request to the House for leave to make a statement. Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 2479

UNEMPLOYMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

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

That this House recalls with regret -

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am listening to a notice. The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat.

Mr Scholes:

– I am rising on a matter of -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already called the honourable member for Holt. He is giving notice of motion.

Mr YATES:

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

That this House-

Recalls with regret that those who became unemployed between 1972 and 1975 rose from 136,769 to 328,705, some of whom were school leavers, and believes that the Labor Government stands condemned for failing to provide special help for them, but now

Notes with approval that the Liberal-National Country Party Government has taken the matter seriously and has introduced five new support programs to help and train school leavers for the work force at a total cost of $ 100m a year, all of which have made a significant contribution to a major problem facing the young school leavers in the nation.

page 2480

GENERAL ELECTION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member for Corio wish to pursue this matter.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Yes. I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will need to put his motion in writing.

The honourable member for Corio having submitted his motion in writing-

Mi SCHOLES-I do not intend to speak to the motion except to say that I have moved it because I believe the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is significant. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) who represents a significant political force in the country, if not in this Parliament at this moment, ought to be heard by the Parliament.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I join in supporting the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in asking the House to give approval for the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) to make a statement. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has made an extremely important statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable member seconding the motion?

Mr YOUNG:
Mr Shipton:

– Are you joining the Australian Democrats?

Mr YOUNG:

-No. I do not intend to join the Australian Democrats but obviously a lot of people in the Liberal Party have joined the Australian Democrats, as one can see from the polls that have taken place. I think a lot of those honourable members opposite who will lose their seats could well end up in the Australian Democrats. I can see no reason for this chamber to refuse to allow a person who is recognised as the leader of his own political party the right to speak on the subject of an election which is being called 12 months before it is due. A significant decision has been made by the Prime Minister. Obviously, the reasons he has given the House are misleading. Obviously, the issues on which the election will be fought are of significance to the Australian Democrats as well as to the Liberal and National Country Parties and to the Australian Labor Party. The reason for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) refusing the right to the honourable member for Hotham to make a statement has not been given to the House. Leave was merely refused. One of the reasons, of course, that an election has been called for the House of Representatives and half the Senate is that an attempt is being made to silence the Australian Democrats. That is the whole purpose of this early election. The election has been called so that Mr Fraser can conclude the coup of getting rid of the clique which perhaps was opposed to his coming to the leadership of the Liberal Party. In that case, one of the people involved was the present Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr Young:

– The other person involved was the honourable member for Hotham. That is the reason why the gag has been moved in this chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Question put-

That the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard.

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

AYES: 77

NOES: 33

Majority……. 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The question before the House is not so much whether the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) should be heard -

Mr Sinclair:

– I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: “That the question be now put’.

Mr BRYANT:

-Or whether this is the private Parliament of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat or he will no longer be serving the Parliament, privately or otherwise. The question is:

That the question be now put

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

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

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 77

Majority……. 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I shall proceed with the business paper.

Mr Wentworth:

-Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Are there any questions without notice? I call the Leader of the Opposition.

page 2482

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2482

QUESTION

REPRESENTATION OF TERRITORIES IN PARLIAMENT

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

-I direct a question to the Minister for Productivity in his capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977

– The way of Independents in this House is hard. Fair go, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I call the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question without notice.

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

- Mr Speaker, perhaps I may re-address my question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes, please do.

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

-I direct a question to the Minister for Productivity in his capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General. I ask: Has the Government ascertained or will it inquire how soon the Justices of the High Court will hand down their judgments in the challenges by the Government of Queensland to the right of citizens in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory to have representatives in the Senate and by the Government of Western Australia to the right of citizens in those Territories to have full representation in the House of Representatives? I point out that the Court reserved judgment on 6 May last and that in earlier such challenges in 1975 by the governments of Western Australia and Queensland, and the former government of New South Wales supported by the government of Victoria, judgment was reserved on 22 May and given on 10 October- a much shorter period than has elapsed in the present challenge.

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

-I shall convey the question to the Attorney-General and ask him to answer the Leader of the Opposition as soon as possible.

page 2482

INFLATION

Mr ABEL:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House how badly Australia was affected by inflation in the years December 1972 to December 1975. By way of assistance to the Prime Minister, I draw to his attention a statement that inflation ‘didn’t hit Australia any worse than other countries’ when the Labor Party was in office. It was said by the honourable -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is out of order. He will resume his seat. I shall permit the first part of the question to be answered.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

- Mr Speaker -

Dr Klugman:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of .order. As I understand it, the question referred to the years 1972 to 1975. Surely the Prime Minister was not in charge of the Australian economy between 1972 and 1975.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think that that is the point of the question. A questioner is entitled to ask for information and the Prime Minister has ministerial responsibility to provide information. The question may seek information about any series of years. If the Prime Minister has the information and can give it in answer to a question without notice he is entitled to do so.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I understand that last night the Leader of the Opposition said:

We were unfortunate enough to be in office when unemployment and inflation hit every Western country. It didn’t nit Australia any worse than other countries.

From 1962 to 1972 the average rate of inflation in Australia was 3.4 per cent. In Germany it was 3.2 per cent, in the United States of America 3.3 per cent, in Japan 5.7 per cent, in France 4.4 per cent and the total for the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was 3.9 per cent. It should be noted that, when the present Government parties were in office, we maintained a respectable relationship to other advanced countries. In 1975, as a result of the policies of the Leader of the Opposition- his own colleagues said that he was not in charge of the country, and clearly he was not- Australia’s inflation was 15.1 per cent. Inflation in Germany was 6 per cent, in the United States 7 per cent, in Japan 1 1.8 per cent, in France 1 1.7 per cent and the average for the OECD countries was 10.6 per cent. The figure for Australia was very much worse than all those other figures. I think it ought to be noted that in one particular area the honourable gentleman accepted in part responsibility for these matters. Sometimes he blamed overseas events; sometimes he blamed Treasurers, whom he sacked very rapidly; and sometimes he blamed wages. But in January 1975 he said:

You can’t blame Vietnam for the inflation in the Western world. You can’t blame the oil crisis for the inflation in Australia. You can’t blame the takeovers and the currency rates for inflation in Australia now. You have to place the blame on wage claims.

I suggest that the blame, in addition to wage claims, was his.

page 2483

QUESTION

JOB CREATION POLICIES

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Treasurer noted that most outside commentators, including business groups such as the Metal Trades Industry Association and the Australian Chamber of Commerce, are calling for the adoption of the Australian Labor Party’s short term economic policy of job creation through selective stimulatory government spending? Has he noted from a recent Australian Bureau of Statistics survey that more than 65,000 people in Australia who want a job stop looking for one because of continual discouragement, which means that the present unprecedented and disastrous unemployment figures are an under-estimate? Now that we are to have an election in just over six weeks, will the Government do a somersault and announce soon increased government spending including spending on job creation programs?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I certainly reject completely what the honourable gentleman has suggested. There will be no deviation from the Budget policy announced in the Budget Speech and in documents attached to the Budget. I reject any suggestion by the honourable gentleman that senior business groups have in some strange way embraced the discredited policies which the honourable gentleman and his colleagues on the other side of the House have been putting forward. In all the discussions that the Government has had with senior business groups in the course of recent months- they have been very comprehensive and quite extensive discussions- one solid point has been put consistently to the Government and that is that the Government must stick to its economic policies because there is widespread recognition throughout the Australian community that those policies are now working and that their success is a matter of very clear and incontrovertible record. The honourable gentleman should look back at the comments on economic policy made by him, by the Leader of the Opposition and by the honourable member for Oxley. I note, in passing, that the honourable member for Oxley has been unceremoniously dumped from the position of economic spokesman by the Leader of the Opposition for reasons which this House well understands. I would welcome questions on that at a later stage.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman should keep his answer relevant to the question.

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable member for Adelaide looks back at what the Australian Labor Party has been saying he will see that it is a lurch back to the policy errors of the past. The Labor Party’s policy in this election campaign has been clearly enunciated in recent months. It is a policy of more expansionary spending, higher deficits and greater pressure on an upward movement of interest rates. In regard to unemployment, the honourable gentleman and his colleagues created the major problem of the wage distortion in 1974-75. At that stage they

Imshed the number of people out of work to a evel which was a record in Australia. That distortion now is being corrected but it will, of course, take further time before the impact of increased economic activity and a lower rate of inflation feeds through into the area of unemployment. Let the honourable gentleman be under no misapprehension: What he is putting forward now is no more than a repetition of the discredited errors of the past. As the Australian Financial Review said after the Leader of the Opposition had brought down his reply to the Budget, it is more of the same old bungling and the Australian community will be very much aware of that.

page 2483

QUESTION

OUTFLOW OF FUNDS FROM AUSTRALIA

Mr UREN:

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Treasurer, by reminding him that on 20 September I drew attention to the fact that many Australian subsidiaries of trans-national companies were shifting assets out of this country because of the feared devaluation. Is the Treasurer aware that a large trans-national corporation, the Utah Development Co., declared dividends of $60m in the September quarter on earnings of $32m, a rate of 187 per cent? Were most of these dividends repatriated to the United States parent company without payment of withholding tax in Australia? Have the actions of large trans-nationals such as Utah contributed to the outflow of $635m from Australia in the last five weeks? Has the outflow continued despite an addition of $8 16m to international reserves through official overseas borrowings and a gold revaluation during this period?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The honourable gentleman and his colleagues did nothing about this situation when they were in government. I believe that any suggestions of the type put forward by the honourable gentleman ought to be seen very much in that context. Mr Speaker, I do not speak specifically about the profit or tax position of the Utah Development Co. or its shareholders, because you, Sir, and the honourable gentleman should be very much aware that this is something about which I have no knowledge. The Commissioner of Taxation is bound by the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act not to disclose such matters to me.

Speaking generally on the point raised by the honourable gentleman, I say that it has long been a feature of income tax law, unchanged by the honourable gentleman and his colleagues, that if a foreign company operates in Australia through a branch rather than an Australian resident subsidiary, Australia collects company tax on that company’s Australian profits but no tax on overseas profit remittances or on dividends paid to overseas shareholders out of the Australian profits. Because I think it is worthy of repetition, I repeat that, unlike the honourable gentleman and his colleagues when they were in government, this Government is looking at the position. I have asked the taxation branch of the Treasury Department to bring forward papers which can be analysed by myself and senior Ministers.

So far as the exchange rate is concerned, because the honourable gentleman finished on that point, I think I have made it perfectly clear to the honourable gentleman that questions from the Opposition side of the House on this matter are very unhelpful with regard to speculation. I want to state again in the strongest possible terms, taking the point of national interest which the honourable gentleman seeks conveniently to overlook for petty party political purposes, that the honourable gentleman should know full well that these are not matters which ought to be subject to question and answer in the House day after day. I deplore such action. I simply say to the honourable gentleman that the current account and balance of payments have firmed through the September quarter, continuing the underlying strength in Australia’s trading position evident in the June quarter. In view of the expected continuation and the strengthening -

Mr Armitage:

-How is Leake?

Mr LYNCH:

-The honourable gentleman is getting the jitters because of the election campaign. In view of the expected continuation in the strengthening of the current account and with a renewed program of overseas borrowings on government account, I am happy to say to the House that the external position is sound.

page 2484

QUESTION

UTAH DEVELOPMENT CO

Mr BRYANT:

– I address my question to the Treasurer. Is it true that the profits of the Utah Development Co. for the quarter are $60m? Is it a fact that the company has 3,000 employees, giving a profit of $20,000 a quarter per employee? How does the Treasurer justify that kind of extravagant exploitation of the country and the people who work in it? How does he justify the continuing support of such profit making with his attack upon the real standard of living?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The honourable gentleman and his colleagues have always made strong attacks on the profit motive in the Australian community because it is a fact of life that Opposition members in this chamber are utterly opposed to free enterprise, to the concept of incentive and the concept of reward for effort and initiative. I make that as a general statement at the outset. So far as the question -

Mr Charles Jones:

– You and your mob have shares in these companies. That is why you support them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will remain silent.

Mr Bryant:

– I rise to take a point of order. My question was whether the Treasurer supports the profit of Utah at $20,000 per employee a quarter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Treasurer.

Mr LYNCH:

-Turning to the question of Utah, I make two points perfectly clear. This company has made a very significant contribution to Australian development. The honourable gentleman recognises, by reference to the figure of 3,000 employees, the number of jobs which has been provided to Australians by that very significant company. Through the tax system this company makes an equally significant contribution to this country’s receipts. With regard to the specifics of what the honourable gentleman has posed, I rest on what I said when I responded to an earlier question, that is, when Opposition gentlemen were in government the policy position remained untouched and unexamined. At the present time the matter is under examination and I have called for papers on the particular point that has been raised today.

page 2484

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES COUNTRY AIRLINE SERVICES

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware of the statement made by Mr Gruzman, Q.C., that in future all flights from New South Wales country areas, such as Nowra and Camden in my electorate, will terminate at Bankstown and not Sydney Airport because Sydney Airport has been given to international and interstate carriers, leaving no room for country services? Can the Minister say whether these allegations are correct and also whether recent allegations that fire fighting services at Sydney Airport are inadequate because of a cutback in funds by the present Government are correct? Will the Government consider making arrangements to provide adequate accommodation for commuter airlines, thus assisting airline services to and from New South Wales country areas to maintain and to improve the already valuable transport services they provide to country people.

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

– I must say that I read with some surprise yesterday a letter which has been circulated to local government authorities throughout New South Wales urging them to make representations to me because commuter services to Sydney Airport are about to be eliminated. I understand that letter was signed by Mr Gruzman. I must say that there is absolutely no substance to the allegation. I am surprised that Mr Gruzman did not check either with me or with my Department before being silly enough to alarm so many local government authorities throughout New South Wales. There is a review going on of the usage of Sydney Airport. At critical periods Sydney Airport is close to full capacity. At times of full capacity priority has to be given to certain aircraft such as commuter aircraft, for which provision has been properly made, the major domestic airlines and international airlines. In the review we are putting privately owned and singly flown aircraft at the bottom of the ladder. But I make it quite clear to all local government authorities in New South Wales that there is no substance in the allegation because proper provision is being made for commuter services.

The allegations about lack of fire fighting services were made in this House by the honourable member for Shortland and they were rather deplorable in light of the facts. The facts are that in the budgets brought down by the LiberalNational Country Party Government in the three years up to 1972, $2.4m was made available for the purchase and provisions of fire fighting services. In the three years under Labor, from 1972 to 1975, only $600,000 was made available for that purpose. In the two years we have been back in office we have stepped up expenditure to $2m. So if there are to be any allegations about a shortage of fire tenders at the Sydney airport, those allegations ought to be directed against the Labor Party. The fact is that since coming back into office we have ordered another 19 ultralarge fire tenders and another nine interventionist fire tenders. We have done that simply because of the neglect by the Labor Party when it was in office m not carrying out its proper responsibilities in this matter.

page 2485

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

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

-I address a question to the Treasurer. Mr Speaker, I shall be naming a person in the question and I want to assure you that in accordance with Standing Order 153 I will be scrupulous to make no criticism of the character or conduct of that person. The question is: . . .

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s question is out of order. I have repeatedly made it clear that questions may be directed to Ministers concerning their public duties and that the conduct of the affairs of a political party is not a part of their public responsibilities. The question therefore is out of order.

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

– On that point, two days ago the Treasurer answered a question about the person I have named. It was clear from this that he was associated with the Treasurer in his public operations. Surely I am entitled to ask a question following up the one which I asked with your permission and which the Treasurer answered.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The fact is that I permitted the earlier question to be asked of the Treasurer and I should not have permitted it. It was an error on my part. It was out of order in accordance with the practice that I have followed of not allowing questions about responsibility for party organisations as distinct from the public duties of the Minister.

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

-On that might I take the point that yesterday when I asked a question you said:

It is customary, if there is any implication of improper activity on the part of an individual named in a question, for the question to be put on notice.

I have been particularly careful not to make any allegation of improper activity on the part of the individual I have named. I have been very careful to comply with what you said yesterday and to confine my question to following up’ what I asked the day before and to which I got an answer.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman asked a question yesterday. It was out of order on two grounds. One was that an implication could be read into it about the named person and therefore it should go on the notice paper. So it was out of order in terms of questions without notice. The honourable gentleman then submitted a question on notice and when I had more time to reflect on the question on notice it became apparent to me that it was out of order for the second reason- the one that I have given this morning, that is, that I have steadfastly refused to allow members of this Parliament to ask these questions, no matter which party is in government. I think it is wrong for Ministers in this House to be answerable for the actions of the party organisation. That is a practice that has been followed by my predecessors. It has been followed by me. I. intend to follow it on this occasion.

Mr Young:

– Further to the point of order, I would like to point out that the question is not directed to the party organisation. There is a big difference between the party organisation raising funds and the person who is a candidate in a specific electorate raising them. The candidate would well know the ins and outs of raising funds in the one electorate as against the party organisation raising funds. From the nod that was given by the Treasurer on the other side of the House, yesterday he objected and said ‘put on notice’ but today he has indicated that he is quite prepared to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is irrelevant to me whether the Treasurer wishes to answer it. There are plenty of other avenues available to him to answer it. The question is out of order.

Mr Lynch:

-Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable gentleman wishes to make a statement or a personal explanation there is opportunity to do that. I understand that the question having been asked he may wish to speak.

Mr Lynch:

– I can see what the honourable gentleman’s tactic in this question is and I certainly do not want to join him in that. Could I say two things? The honourable gentleman should be very much aware that matters of finance raising on this side of the House are not the responsibility of members of Parliament nor, in fact, the responsibility of endorsed candidates. The responsibility rests with the finance committees in the various electorates. The matter was checked by me yesterday with the chairman of the Flinders finance committee who has the responsibility in these matters, not me. The details are not known to me. The chairman of the Flinders finance committee has issued or will shortly issue a Press statement and as I recall the text of that statement, the answer which has been provided by the chairman of that finance committee is ‘No’. I suggest that the honourable gentleman should not raise questions of this type in this House because of the implication behind them; he should place them on notice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not canvass the ruling. He will resume his seat.

page 2486

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen reports criticising Mr Justice Hope’s recommendations that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation be given wide powers to protect Australia’s security?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I am concerned that such reports have already been issued because I believe that Mr Justice Hope went into these matters with a great deal of care and a greaf deal of concern for the civil liberties of Australians, as one would expect, and I would believe that was one of the reasons the Leader of the Opposition, in his time, in government appointed Mr Justice Hope to examine Australia’s security intelligence services- not just ASIO but the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Defence Signals Division. Apparently the head of the Australian Labor Party rejects the findings and recommendations of the royal commissioner appointed by the party that he, Mr Hawke, heads in its organisational structure. I believe that is most regrettable because these recommendations have been made by His Honour himself against the assessment of the threat to Australia to make sure that Australia’s intelligence services are relevant to Australia’s present day needs.

It needs to be emphasised that in the fourth report concerning ASIO Mr Justice Hope’s basic finding was that Australia needs and should have a security intelligence service to investigate and provide intelligence about threats to the internal security of the nation. His Honour stated:

On the basis of what has been submitted or provided to me-

That is, to the judge-

I find that Australia faces and has faced, or may face, threats to its internal security and that ASIO should investigate espionage, active measures, subversion, sabotage, terrorism, the organisation in Australia of or assistance for violent political activity in foreign countries.

Mr Hawke apparently is one of those naive Australians that Mr Justice Hope tried to warn by saying:

Australia must not be so naive as to think that it has some exemption from clandestine operations, or that it need not take steps to protect itself against them.

But on the other hand perhaps it is not surprising that Mr Hawke, as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, is sensitive about more effective ASIO operations. Mr Justice Hope in his report on this area of subversion said: … the two main communist parties, the Communist Party of Australia and the Socialist Party of Australia, have strong influence in some unions. They exercise a power greatly in excess of that which their numbers would justify, among other reasons because they often strongly support the interests of trade unionists and put their full force behind industrial issues.

The judge continues:

At other times they make use of industrial disputes for their own -

That is communist- political purposes.

I added the words ‘that is communist’ because the judge was talking of the communist parties. The Government has no doubt that a more effective and efficient ASIO is of fundamental importance to Australia’s internal security just as it has no doubt that it needs ASIS and the Defence Signals Division, as the judge also strongly recommended. We praise and thank Mr Justice Hope for his great concern to strike a proper balance between the need to respond decisively to threat to Australia’s security and to preserve individual freedom. I believe that the Government’s decisions on these matters and the various appeal tribunals will achieve that end.

I was gratified to see, as I understand it, that the Leader of the Opposition has been reported as having defended Mr Justice Hope’s report. He suggested that there ought to be a bi-partisan approach to these matters. I hope that that can be achieved. I believe these matters are of fundamental importance to Australia now and in the future. There are one or two things that the honourable gentleman did for which I suppose one would need to give him some credit. One was appointing Mr Justice Hope to undertake this inquiry. The second was appointing Mr Justice Woodward to head ASIO. I have great confidence in both honourable gentlemen. I hope that the Australian Labor Party, in its totality, can have the same attitude. But it has been made quite plain that that is not so, since Mr Hawke has bitterly attacked the findings of His Honour. This is one of the things about which people are left in some bewilderment. They never really know which of the Labor Party spokesmen are enunciating policy which will be followed at any one time. Therefore there is the question as to whether some future Labor Administration- if the Labor Party ever had an opportunity to be in government- would accept those findings or do what some of its members want to do, that is destroy the security intelligence services which Australia so sorely needs.

page 2487

QUESTION

DISCLOSURE OF DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES

Mr YOUNG:

-I ask the Prime Minister Has his attention been drawn to allegations in the Press that the political parties backing the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Country Party of Australia have $4m available to them for the forthcoming election?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is out of order. ‘ Mr YOUNG-No, it is not. It leads up to the laws on the disclosure of donations.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable gentleman chooses to speak in terms that are out of order and to tell me that he has a surprise for me by making the question in order, I advise him to bring the question into order immediately.

Mr YOUNG:

-Mr Speaker, it would not be the first surprise in your career.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman is absolutely right. The next surprise in your career is to be ruled out of order.

Mr YOUNG:

-No, because I have asked -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is out of order.

Mr YOUNG:

-Well, I move disagreement with your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER:

-You may do that.

Mr Young:

– I take a point of order to clear my point. Just two weeks ago I asked a very similar question. My question leads to the laws appertaining to the disclosure of donations to political parties-laws effected by this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will remain silent for a moment. I will allow the honourable gentleman to proceed with his question. I warn him to come immediately to it.

Mr YOUNG:

-I ask the Prime Minister: Is this Parliament to rise before any amendments are made to the laws that would bring about a disclosure of any person or company making a donation to a political party in view of the revelations of the land deals in Victoria which have connotations of great corruption?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I suggest that the honourable gentleman should turn his attention first to his own leader. I also suggest that if he wishes to pursue this matter he should allow full evidence to be given under sworn affidavit by the Leader of the Opposition as he now is and by the National Secretary of the Labor Party as he was at the time and still is of everytiiing that transpired in relation to a certain breakfast with some gentlemen from Iraq. Mr Speaker -

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

-Mr Speaker -

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– And -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Both honourable gentlemen will resume their seats. Is the Leader of the Opposition raising a point of order?

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

– Yes, I am, Sir. I have previously drawn to your attention that the matters which the right honourable gentleman is now raising are the subject of court actions. They are sub judice. I informed you earlier that there was such a case. The first was to come on in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on Monday of this week. The Court was informed that the matter had been settled. I expect it will be mentioned in the Court tomorrow. A payment will be made and an apology will be read. It is quite out of order, I submit, in those circumstances for the Prime Minister to say under privilege here things that anybody can, with impunity, quote outside, when, where there has been an opportunity to litigate these matters, the persons against whom the action has been taken have decided to settle. I also assure you, Mr Speaker, that there are other related matters which have not come before the Court yet because only one judge has been operating. A reference has also been made to the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. He also has matters waiting to be heard in the same Court. Mr Speaker, I put it to you quite seriously that it is out of order for the Prime Minister, and previously of course for the Government Whip, to say things about matters which are sub judice. The first matter was to come on and was settled. Others would have come on if there had been more than one judge. The ploy is quite obviously to say things under privilege in the Parliament which can be quoted outside.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman should not attribute motive. He has made his point. The matter is sub judice. I uphold the point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, please -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member for Mackellar have a point of order?

Mr Wentworth:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the implications of the sub judice rule and particularly to the modifications adopted by the House of Commons in its practices of 1972. The purpose of the sub judice rule is to prevent any prejudice. If a matter has been settled, whether or not the formal settlement has been made, there can be no possibility of prejudice. I further draw your attention to the principles set down by the House of Commons in relauon to the sub judice rule. The House of Commons made it quite clear that there were two complete competing considerations to be brought into -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think the honourable gentleman may cease instructing me as to what the House of Commons did.

Mr Wentworth:

– On a point of order I think I am entitled -

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have heard the honourable member for Mackellar. He has made his point. I have given rulings here in relation to sub judice which take into account what the House of Commons did in 1972. In fact the attitude which I have adopted, I think, is an advance on that which the House of Commons adopted in 1972, and I will proceed with it. Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishing to pursue the point?

Mr Uren:

– I am only pointing out the collusion that was going on between the Prime Minister and the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat forthwith. 1 call the honourable member for La Trobe.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

- Mr Speaker, there were one or two things I wished to add.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I apologise. I call the right honourable the Prime Minister. I have ruled that sub judice will be protected. I ask the Prime Minister to respect that.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– In relation to the matter of the Iraqi breakfast, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is right.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I would think also that it would be a very good thing- and the honourable gentleman would appear much more genuine in these matters- if he were prepared to give a full list of all the donations which go to the Australian Labor Party. There have been some most interesting letters from the Leader of the Opposition to multinational companies and all sorts of companies appealing for funds. One of the things that will be most interesting is to know how many communist unions are supporting the

Australian Labor Party in its election policies. There was an occasion, if my memory is correct, when the Leader of the Opposition attended a meeting of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union and gave certain policy assurances. As a result, if my memory is correct, a motion for a donation of $25,000 was moved by Mr Laurie Carmichael.

page 2489

QUESTION

RANGER PROJECT: AGREEMENT WITH LABOR GOVERNMENT

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

-Is the Prime Minister aware of a memorandum of understanding that was signed between the Whitlam Labor Government and the Ranger uranium mining company? If so, what were the provisions of that memorandum? Who signed it on behalf of the Labor Government?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Mr Speaker -

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

– The document was tabled two years ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The fact that the document has been tabled does not put the question out of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, it does mean that I and some other honourable members are aware of this document.

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

– You should be. It is a public document and it has been for over two years.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Let me be specific. This document was signed by the Leader of the Opposition and by other members of his Party. It committed his Government going into partnership in the mining, development and export of uranium with certain commercial companies. In addition, there is another document, which is a Press statement put out by the then Prime Minister. I should like to read part of it.

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

– Incorporate it.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Yes, I will incorporate all of it in Hansard. The statement, referring to the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, reads: . . signed this afternoon a Memorandum of Understanding … for the development and mining of uranium ore deposits in the Ranger area in the Northern Territory and for the production and sale of uranium concentrate from that ore . . . The Government believes that the Ranger Project can be a major export earner and it will be working with . . . to bring this fully Australian mining project to fruition.

Clearly, the Labor Government wanted to have mining proceed and uranium exported. That was, I believe, a proper view except that the then Prime Minister should have waited for the findings of the Fox inquiry before he committed himself to that matter.

The document read as follows-

page 2489

PRIME MINISTER

Press Statement No. 583 28 October 1975

page 2489

QUESTION

THE RANGER URANIUM PROJECT IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

The Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam; the Managing Director of Electrolytic Zince Company of Australasia Ltd, Mr Mackay; and the Chairman of Peko Mines Ltd, Mr Proud signed this afternoon a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and the Companies for the development and miningof uranium ore deposits in the Ranger area in the Northern Territory and for the production and sale of uranium concentrate from that ore.

This Memorandum represents an elaboration of the Agreement previously signed by the Ministers and representatives of the Companies on 30 October 1974.

The completion of this Memorandum of Understanding will now facilitate the early preparation of formal agreements in relation to this Venture. It is understood by the Parties, however, that these agreements will not become effective until Australia has affirmed them following consideration of:

  1. the Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry (Hearings by this Inquiry commenced on 9 September 1975 with Mr Justice Fox as presiding Commissioner.);
  2. the outcome of any claims by Aboriginals in respect of land within the Ranger area (in conformity with the procedures to be required by the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill 1975 now before the Parliament).

The discussions which have led to the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding this afternoon confirms the confidence of the Government and Peko and EZ in this major Australian mining enterprise. The Government believes that the Ranger Project can be a major export earner and it will be working with Peko and EZ to bring this fully Australian mining project to fruition. Nevertheless, it is essential before the project can proceed, that the Government receive the Report of the Environmental Inquiry and take whatever steps it may then judge necessary in the light of the findings and recommendations of that Inquiry.

Canberra, A.C.T

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-But then on This Day Tonight last night a questioner from Melbourne put to the Leader of the Opposition this question:

  1. . two years ago you signed a statement that you’d like to see uranium mined . . .

The Leader of the Opposition replied:

No. I have never said anything of the sort . . . I have never signed a statement like that.

Mr Speaker, I ask that this document be incorporated in Hansard. The other document already has been tabled. This Parliament and this country really needs a new definition of the word ‘truth’ so that the honourable gentleman can fit it.

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

- Mr Speaker, I ask the honourable gentleman to table the transcript from which he was quoting. In fact, I ask that the whole of the answer I gave to the question on uranium on This Day Tonight last night be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The documents have been tabled. The portions of the document read by the Prime Minister will be in Hansard simply because they were read. The request now from the Leader of the Opposition is that the whole of the answer in relation to uranium be incorporated in Hansard. Is leave granted?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I do not have the whole document here but it would be possible to get a full transcript. I think it would be a very good thing if the whole of the transcript of the TDT interview could be incorporated in Hansard. If that is done, I think it will indicate five or six areas where that special definition to which I have referred would need to be applied. In relation to the same matter, I also ask, Mr Speaker, to have incorporated in Hansard page 38 of a document which concerns a meeting of the Commonwealth Council of Amalgamated Organisations and various unions held on Friday afternoon, 2 June 1972, when the president of the union arranged that there be a donation to the Australian Labor Party. Everyone knows very much the influence of the communist element in that union.

The document read as follows-

page 2490

MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH COUNCIL AMALGAMATED ORGANISATION

A.E.U.-B. & B.S.-S.M.W.U

Friday afternoon session

2/6/72

page 38

President Bro. J. Devereux

All present

Council assembled at 1.30 p.m.

page 2490

QUESTION

DONATION TO A.L.P. FEDERAL ELECTION FUND

Motion-That Commonwealth Council donate $25,000 to the A.L.P. Federal election fund ‘.

Carried

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable members to wait and resume their seats. The Leader of the Opposition has sought to have incorporated in Hansard that portion of his answer in a television interview which related to uranium.

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

-I should like the whole of the answer I gave incorporated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition wants the whole of that answer incorporated. The Prime Minister has responded by suggesting that the whole text of the television interview be incorporated in Hansard. If that is agreed to then what the Leader of the Opposition has requested will have been subsumed. I put that to the House.

Mr Scholes:

– I want to clarify a point -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Let me complete my remarks. I will put to the House the question of whether leave is granted for the incorporation in Hansard of the whole text of that interview. I now put that question: Is leave granted to incorporate in Hansard the whole text of the television interview?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Yes, leave is granted.

MrE.G.Whitlam-Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is granted.

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to be patient for a few seconds.

Mr Scholes:

– I want to raise a point of order on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will call the honourable member before the matter is concluded. I will also allow the honourable member for Newcastle to raise his point of order. The question which I now have to ascertain is whether a copy of that transcript can be given to me because until I see the document I am not in a position to authorise it being incorporated in Hansard. Has the Prime Minister any information he can give me about the text of that interview?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-There are two texts of the interview. One has been transcribed in my office and I understand that the Parliamentary Library also has a transcript of the interview. I am advised that the texts are similar in relation to this question. I would be very happy to have either one or both texts incorporated. Mr Speaker, after Question Time I can provide you with the text of the interview.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will call for the Parliamentary Library to provide the text. When I see the text- not the interview- I will decide whether it can be incorporated in Hansard from the point of view of its length. If I feel that it is too long and anything has to be deleted I will not take any action until I have consulted with both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, I also ask to have incorporated in Hansard another document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that this is the matter on which the point of order is being raised.

Mr Scholes:

– My point of order is that the Prime Minister in his statement said that in the interests of truth certain documents should be incorporated in Hansard. I ask whether the Prime Minister will incorporate in Hansard- in addition to tabling it- the full text of the agreement with the Ranger uranium mining company because by omission he has misled the Parliament. The document contains terms which indicate that the agreement is subject to the Ranger environmental report. That was not included in the Prime Minister’s statement. Therefore, I ask that the full text of the agreement be incorporated in Hansard so that the whole truth and not selected items of the truth, which are misleading, can be put to the Parliament.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It has already been agreed that the Press statement put out by Mr Whitlam, when he was Prime Minister, be incorporated in Hansard. The other document is a very long document. I have no objection to it being incorporated in Hansard, but it has been tabled previously. Let me say that the special definition of truth that is needed in this matter covers the point where the Leader of the Opposition said:

No. I have never said anything of the sort . . . I have never signed a statement like that.

The question asked was: . . . two years ago you signed a statement that you’d like to see uranium mined . . .

I have made it perfectly plain that the Press statement put out by the honourable gentleman made that quite clear. He said:

The Government believes that the Ranger project can be a major export earner and it will be working with … to bring this fully Australian mining project to fruition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.

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

- Mr Speaker, a request has been made that a certain document be incorporated in Hansard. What glosses the present Prime Minister may put on them is quite immaterial. They speak for themselves.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio asked that the agreement in relation to the Ranger uranium mining company be incorporated in Hansard. I ask the Prime Minister to respond to that request- that is, that the whole of the agreement relating to the Ranger company be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I have no objection to that at all. I have only pointed out that it is a long document and it already has been tabled. If the honourable gentleman wants it incorporated in Hansard, the Government has no objection. The only point I should like to raise is that the allegation in the question was that the Leader of the Opposition had signed a document. In fact, he issued a Press statement in which he made it perfectly plain that he wanted these processes to go ahead. The allegation in the question was correct. The honourable gentleman misled all the people watching the JDrprogram last night.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think the right honourable gentleman has made the implication clear.

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

-Mr Speaker, I ask that that last sentence be withdrawn. I did not mislead. I went on to say that I had made statements and tabled documents in the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will not call for the withdrawal of the statement.

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

-I thought that the word ‘misled’ was used, and that would be unparliamentary.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Now that all the documents are being incorporated in Hansard, I think when they are brought together they will speak for themselves. The way in which the Prime Minister used that term previously was not in the sense of an allegation against the Leader of the Opposition but it was a conclusion drawn out of the facts. Whether the allegation will stand up will depend upon an examination of the documents. A request has been made that the document Memorandum of Understanding be incorporated in Hansard. The Prime Minister has already indicated that he would be prepared to do that. Therefore leave is granted for the document to be incorporated.

The document read as follows-

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Parties to this memorandum-

The Commonwealth of Australia- (Australia) Peko Mines Limited- (Peko) Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Limited-(EZ)

PRELIMINARY

The parties to this memorandum desire to procure the development and mining of uranium ore deposits in the Ran6^- Project area in the Northern Territory and the production and sale of uranium concentrate from that ore.

To these ends, Ministers and representatives of the companies signed an agreement dated 30 October 1974 (‘the 1974 Agreement’), a copy of which is attached. It is now desirable to elaborate and supplement the 1974 Agreement and to set out agreed understandings on major issues affecting the development of the Ranger Project to facilitate the early preparation of formal, definitive and binding contracts in relation to it.

Contracts to give effect to this Memorandum of Understanding to which Australia is, or is to be, a party shall not become effective until Australia has affirmed them following consideration of:

  1. the report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry;
  2. a report by the Interim Aboriginal Land Commissioner on any claims by Aboriginals in respect of land within the Ranger Project area.

    1. Scope of Ranger Project
  3. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (The Commission), Peko and EZ shall carry on a joint venture in the Northern Territory for

    1. the development and mining of uranium ore deposits on behalf of Australia in the Ranger Project area;
    2. the construction, operation and maintenance of a uranium ore treatment plant for the production of uranium concentrate and other agreed mineral products derived from ore mined in the Ranger Project area;
    3. the delivery to Australia of uranium concentrate produced from the uranium ore treatment plant;
    4. the provision and operation of facilities, equipment and services directly related to and reasonably required for the foregoing.
  4. The Ranger Project area shall be an area of approximately 32 square miles being the area delineated in blue on the attached plan.
  5. The Ranger Project shall be conducted as a commercial venture and in accordance with good commercial, mining and industrial practice.
  6. Australia, Peko and EZ shall do all things necessary to enable the objects of the joint venture to be achieved.
  7. e ) In particular, Australia-

    1. Shall grant any necessary and appropriate authorities under the Atomic Energy Act. The initial authority shall be granted for a period of twenty one years.
    2. Shall, if Peko and EZ in respect of their participation in the joint venture are not treated as carrying on ‘prescribed mining operations’ on the Ranger Project area for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act as it stands at the date of this Memorandum of Understanding, seek amendment of the law to enable them to be treated under the income tax law as if they were carrying on ‘prescribed mining operations’ on that area.
    3. Shall ensure that the Ranger Project area is reserved from occupation under the Mining Ordinance of the Northern Territory.
  8. In particular, Peko and EZ-
  9. Shall provide to the Commission as a joint venturer without charge all information and technical data in their possession or in the possession of Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd (RUM) with respect to the Peko-EZ Ranger joint venture. will be consistent with the 1974 Agreement and with this Memorandum of Understanding,

    1. Shall not dispose of any part of their shareholdings in RUM or exercise their voting power as shareholders in RUM in a manner inconsistent with the 1974 Agreement or with this Memorandum of Understanding.
  10. The Ranger Project shall continue in force during the economic life of the uranium ore deposits in the Project area.
  11. There will be no royalties imposed in respect of the Ranger Project of a kind similar to the royalty that would have been imposed under a mining title granted under the Northern Territory Mining Ordinance.

    1. Project Management

The joint venturers shall engage RUM to be the manager of the Ranger Project. RUM shall be responsible for the planning, development, construction, operation and maintenance of the Ranger Project and shall, for that purpose, be furnished with all necessary funds by the joint venturers and shall have possession and control (but not ownership) of all joint venture assets. All contracts entered into by RUM in connection with the Project shall be as agent for and to the account of the joint venturers.

  1. Project Decisions

    1. There shall be a Ranger Project Committee consisting of four members. Two members shall be appointed by the Commission and one member shall be appointed by each of Peko and EZ. This committee shall be responsible for making certain fundamental policy decisions such as cessation, curtailment or suspension of construction or operation of the Project and major expansion of treatment plant capacity. The decision of the committee shall require a unanimous vote.
    2. RUM shall have a board of four directors. Two directors shall be appointed by the Commission and one director shall be appointed by each of Peko and EZ.
  2. Scale of Operation

    1. a) The treatment plant shall:
    1. be promptly constructed near the Ranger Number One ore body (the precise location to be determined by the Board of RUM);
    2. have an initial annual capacity of not less than 3,300 short tons of U,Og in uranium concentrate conforming to the quality specifications of Allied Chemicals Corporation, U.S.A.; and
    3. be operated at optimum capacity consistent with good engineering practice and with sound commercial practice.

When commercially practicable the annual capacity shall be increased to 6,600 short tons of U3O8.

  1. The uranium ore deposits in the project area shall be progressively developed and mined (commencing with the Ranger Number One ore body).
  2. All uranium concentrate produced at the treatment plant shall be delivered to the Commission as agent of Australia.

    1. Joint venture, costs, assets and sharing proceeds of sales
  3. The relevant proportions of contributions of capital from time to time including working capital shall be:

The Commission- 72½ per cent

Peko- 13¾ percent

EZ-13¾ percent and project assets shall be held in like undivided percentages. There shall be no interest charges on capital contributions to the Ranger Project.

  1. Project assets shall not be the subject of partition.
  2. Subject to paragraph (d ), Peko and EZ shall each be entitled to receive the net annual annual proceeds of the sale of 25 per cent of the uranium concentrate produced by the Ranger Project.
  3. In any year in which uranium concentrate produced by the Ranger Project-

    1. is made available to Peko or EZ to enable them or one of them to meet contractual obligations already undertaken; or
    2. is applied to replenish drawings by Peko or EZ from Australia’s stockpile of uranium concentrate, an appropriate adjustment shall be made to the entitlement of Peko and EZ to share in the net annual proceeds of sales (see Clause 9 below ).
  4. The net annual proceeds of sale or uranium concentrate produced by the Ranger Project shall consist of gross proceeds of sales less the costs of mining, milling and selling the uranium concentrate. In determining net annual proceeds of sale no account shall be taken of depreciation of capital assets or of interest charges in respect of the provision of capital by the joint venturers. (0 Project buildings, structures, plant and machinery shall remain the property of the joint venturers even though the same may be affixed to Crown land.
  5. The joint venturers shall acquire at cost or at current market value, whichever is the less, the tangible assets of the Peko-EZ joint venture in the Ranger Project area or otherwise held by RUM.

    1. Sales
  6. All future sales of uranium concentrate produced by the Ranger Project shall be effected by the Commission as agent for Australia. Subject to the stockpile requirements referred to in Clause 8(a) and (d) herein, the uranium concentrate output of the project shall be sold at least at world market prices with the object of maximising profitability and cash flow on a continuing basis. Prior to the decision to commence construction of the project, the Commission shall use its best endeavours to sell sufficient uranium concentrate output of the project to facilitate appropriate financing arrangements by Peko and EZ to enable them to meet their obligations under Clause 5 (a) (i) and (ii) and Clause 6 (a) above. By the time the treatment plant commences commercial production, the planned plant capacity shall, as far as practicable, have already been contracted for sale.
  7. All minerals products, other than uranium concentrate produced at the treatment plant, shall be sold by Peko and EZ on behalf of the joint venturers.

    1. Stockpile
  8. Vendor’s stockpile

The Vendor’s stockpile of Ranger production shall be maintained at a level determined by the Commission from time to time having regard to existing and forward commitments and production rates. The stockpile shall not exceed a tonnage equivalent to the nominal production capacity of the Ranger treatment plant for three months of continuous operation unless the joint venturers otherwise agree.

  1. Inability to sell

If the Commission is unable to sell Ranger production on world markets on reasonable terms and conditions, the joint venturers will confer in the Ranger Project committee as to what action should be taken, consistent with good commercial practice, in relation to the continued operation of the mine and treatment plant.

  1. Withholding from sale for commercial reasons

If the Commission withholds uranium concentrate from sale on the market for commercial reasons and thereby causes an increase in the holdings of Ranger uranium concentrate above the maximum level specified in paragraph (a) above, the Commission will inform Peko and EZ of the fact and Peko and EZ may request the Commission to oner for sale at the prevailing world market price that share of the Ranger production the net proceeds of the sale of which they are entitled to receive. If such a request is made to the Commission, the Commission shall fonhwith inform the Minister for Minerals and Energy of the request and, if the Minister so directs, the Commission shall comply with the request. In considering whether such direction should be given the Minister will have regard to and give due consideration to any financial hardship which Peko and EZ may suffer if such direction is not given.

  1. Withholding from sale in the national interest

In the event that in the national interest Australia withholds from sale uranium concentrate produced by the Ranger Project, an arbitrator shall be appointed to decide what compensation, if any, but not exceeding world market price, should be given by Australia to offset the adverse financial effect on Peko and EZ resulting from this action. If the purpose of withholding from sale is to establish a stockpile for enrichment or strategic reasons, the Government will pay world market price.

  1. Contracts with Japanese utilities

    1. Until the treatment plant is in commercial production, uranium concentrate of the necessary quality shall, to the extent required, be made available to Peko and EZ from Australia’s existing stockpile to enable them to meet their obligations to Japanese utilides under contracts approved prior to the date of this Memorandum of Understanding.
    2. Where a quantity of uranium concentrate is made available to Peko or EZ (the borrowing company) from Australia’s stockpile for delivery under an approved contract referred to in paragraph (a) above, the borrowing company in consideration of such action by Australia snail within seven (7) days after the due date for each payment under the contract pay to Australia a fee equivalent to the amount payable to the borrowing company under the contract less deductions for freight, insurance and selling commission (not exceeding in the aggregate 5 per cent of the payment) payable by the borrowing company.
    3. During each year of the five-year period commencing on the date of completion of full scale commissioning of the Ranger plant, Australia shall be entitled to retain for its own purposes up to five hundred short tons of the uranium concentrate produced at the plant, provided that the aggregate amount so retained shall not exceed the total amount of uranium concentrate made available from Australia’s existing stockpile in accordance with paragraph (a) above.
    4. Operating costs in respect of the production of that uranium concentrate shall be borne by the Commission to the extent to which such costs do not exceed the relevant fee referred to in paragraph (b) above. Operating costs in excess of such fee shall be borne by the borrowing company. If such operating costs are less than the relevant fee referred to in paragraph (b) above, Australia shall, subject to paragraph (j) below, pay to the borrowing company an amount equal to the excess of the relevant fee over the operating costs in respect of the production of the uranium concentrate appropriated and retained by Australia pursuant to paragraph (c) above.
    5. Once the treatment plant commences commercial production following completion of full scale commissioning, Australia will make available to Peko and EZ, out of the production of the Ranger project, uranium concentrate of the necessary quality to meet obligations to Japanese utilities under contracts approved prior to the date of this Memorandum of Understanding. (0 Peko and EZ shall pay to Australia in respect of uranium concentrate referred to in paragraph (e) above, an amount equal to operating costs in respect of that production.
    6. Proceeds received by Peko and EZ under their approved contracts shall not be joint venture receipts.
    7. Until the contractual obligations of Peko and EZ have been fully met, Peko and EZ shall only receive from the joint venture the excess of sales revenue over operating costs and selling costs in respect of the tonnage by which one-half of Ranger project uranium concentrate production in each year exceeds the tonnage of uranium concentrate made available to Peko and EZ in such year in accordance with paragraph (e) above and the tonnage retained by Australia in accordance with (c) above.
    8. If at the end of the period referred to in paragraph (c) above, insufficient uranium concentrate has been produced at the plant to enable Australia to fully exercise its entitlement under that paragraph the entitlement of Australia to appropriate and retain for its own purposes up to five hundred short tons of the uranium concentrate produced at the plant in each year shall continue until the aggregate amount retained pursuant to paragraph (c) and to this paragraph equals the total amount of uranium concentrate made available from Australia’s existing stockpile in accordance with paragraph (a) above. Operating costs in respect of the production of uranium concentrate retained by Australia pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid in accordance with paragraph (d) above but, to the extent that the relevant fee referred to in paragraph (b) above exceeds such operating costs, Australia is entitled to retain that fee.
  2. Assignments

If either Peko or EZ wishes to assign its interest in the joint venture, then the other of them shall have a preemptive right of purchase. If this pre-emptive right is not exercised, then the party wishing to assign may assign to Australia or to a corporation nominated by Australia. If the Commission wishes to assign its interest in the joint venture, then Peko and EZ shall have a pre-emptive right of purchase. If either Peko or EZ defaults, then the other of them shall have a pre-emptive right to take over the rights and obligations of the defaulter.

  1. 1 . Relinquishment of Rights Under Mining Ordinance

When the last of all contracts necessary to give effect to this Memorandum of Understanding has become effective, Peko and EZ shall relinquish all interests held by them under the Mining Ordinance of the Northern Territory within the Ranger Project area. for Australia

page 2494

E.G.WHITLAM

Prime Minister for Peko Mines Limited

page 2494

JOHNS. PROUD

for Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Limited

page 2494

G.MACKAY

page 2494

NORTHERN TERRITORY URANIUM

Signed:

page 2494

E.G.WHITLAM JOHNS. PROUD

page 2494

J.F. CAIRNS G.MACKAY

page 2494

R. X. CONNOR

30 October 1974

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Prime Minister mentioned another document which he wished to incorporate.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– It is a very simple and short document which indicates that a donation was made to the Australian Labor Party federal campaign fund from the Amalgamated Metalworkers and Shipwrights Union or the appropriate unions- the amalgamated organisationsof $25,000. Everyone knows the influences of the communists in that particular union. It is a simple document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Prime Minister is asking for leave to incorporate that document in Hansard.

Mr Charles Jones:

-The Prime Minister, by innuendo and smear, is alleging and implying that the AMWSU is a communist controlled union. May I draw the attention of the right honourable gentleman and honourable members to the fact that the Federal President of that union, Dick Scott, is a member of the Labor Party. One of the joint secretaries of that union, John Garland, is a member of the Labor Party and a member of the New South Wales Branch of the Labor Party’s administrative committee. Harry Wilson, the other committee secretary, is also a member of the Australian Labor Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is whether the Prime Minister is to be granted leave, to incorporate that document m Hansard. Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 2495

MR PETER LEAKE

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Treasurer has indicated to me that he seeks my indulgence to add to an answer which he has given. I propose to extend that indulgence to the Treasurer. I call the Treasurer.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– In response to a question posed to me today by the Leader of the Opposition, I indicated that fund raising activities m electorates held by Liberal Party members in Victoria are in fact the responsibility of area finance committees and certainly not the responsibility of members of parliament or endorsed candidates. On that basis the details of fund raising activities would not be known to me. I also at that stage referred to a Press statement which I understand has been issued or is about to be issued. Because this point has been raised by the honourable gentleman, I would like to read to the House a statement over the signature of Mr J. W. Davis -

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

– Incorporate it.

Mr LYNCH:

– The matter has been raised. I want to read this statement into the record because it is over the signature of Mr J. W. Davis, Chairman of the Flinders Area Finance Committee. It bears today’s date. It reads:

Mr Joe Davis, Chairman of the Flinders Area Finance Committee, said that the finances of election campaigns of the Liberal Party in Flinders have, as is the case of the Liberal Party generally, been wholly the responsibility of the Area Finance Committee (originally the Electorate Committee operating in conjunction with a sub-finance committee) and certainly not the responsibility of the endorsed candidate or the member.

At no time did Mr Leake raise any funds for or on behalf of Mr Lynch. Mr Leake has not been employed or involved in fund raising in the electorate of Hinders, but records of the Finance Committee show that at one stage he provided a personal cheque for the sum of S 100.

As I mentioned before, I am relying on the information provided by the Chairman of the Committee. What he says is in response to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

page 2495

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

-Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, 1 present the annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 2495

PIG INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Industry Research Act 1971, I present the annual report of the Pig Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 977.

page 2495

TOBACCO INDUSTRY TRUST ACCOUNT

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

– Pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955, 1 present the annual report of the Tobacco Industry Trust Account for the year ended 30 June 1 977.

page 2495

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

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

– As a number of honourable members have asked me about this matter, I might indicate that the House will be meeting as usual on Tuesday next.

page 2495

MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS ORGANISATIONS

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

Pursuant to section 76a of the National Health Act 1953, 1 present the annual report on the operations of the registered medical and hospital benefits organisations for the year ended 30 June 1976.

Dr Klugman:

-This is about a year and a half overdue, is it not?

Mr HUNT:

-No later than yours.

page 2496

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

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

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1973 I present the annual report on the operations of the Consumer Affairs Council and Consumer Affairs Bureau of the Australian Capital Territory for the year ended 30 June 1977.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair)- by leave- agreed to:

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Bureau for the year 1976-77; and that the report be printed.

page 2496

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS: PHOTOGRAPHS

Mr SPEAKER:

-An allegation has been brought to my attention that a photograph of an event this morning was taken in this chamber and it has been indicated to me that it is proposed that that photograph be published. I warn those who may choose to publish a photograph which was taken without authority that they may endanger themselves in relation to the privileges of this House.

page 2496

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr COHEN:

– Yes. During the adjournment debate last night, I was speaking on a matter. I was quoting the unemployment figures for my electorate which I said were the highest in the State. The honourable member for St George interjected- as a matter of fact, there was noise from a whole gaggle of geese on the opposite side of the chamber- and Hansard reports:

That is because of the actions of the local Federal member.

I did not quite hear what he said. I thought he said: ‘That was because of the actions of the Federal Government’. I said:

I know, but that is irrelevant.

A reading of Hansard conveys the impression that I accepted the unemployment situation in my electorate as being our fault. As you can see, Mr Speaker, this is a grievous mistake in Hansard.

Mr Young:

– How much did you get out of the RED scheme?

Mr COHEN:

-I got $8m out of the RED scheme.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent and the honourable member for Robertson will continue with his personal explanation.

Mr COHEN:

– As you can see, Mr Speaker, this is a very grievous error. I would like it altered in Hansard. Further, I want to be sure that some unprincipled person does not take that remark from Hansard and use it out of context.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will make inquiries of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter to see whether the permanent record, the weekly Hansard, can be altered.

Mr COHEN:

– I have one question. If, for instance, someone quotes that remark, could that be a breach of privilege if it has been altered at a later date?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will not give an answer to that immediately. If that happens, the honourable gentleman can draw my attention to it.

Mr COHEN:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Lucock:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members of the National Country Party are rather worried that you might think they are not photogenic. I point out that this morning no member of this Party received the call from you to ask a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am very well aware of that fact. My practice is to call three members from the Liberal Party and one from the Country Party, which is the agreed proportion. This morning one or two things seemed to be happening in the course of that procedure. I overlooked calling a member from the Country Party to ask the fourth question from that side. In fact only four questions were asked from the Government side. It was an error on my part. I noticed, however, that the proceedings were not actually being televised at the time. I will make.it up next week.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-Mr Speaker, I wish to speak on the matter raised by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen). I also ask that you look at the Hansard because although I cannot remember making such an interjection I certainly did not make any personal reference to the honourable member about the matter of unemployment. I would not wish him to think that I had.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am quite sure that the honourable member for Robertson is pursuing a separate point. There is no allegation against the honourable member for St George.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-During Question Time the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), in response to a Dorothy Dix question, said that during my term as Minister for Transport I had neglected fire-fighting services and facilities at airports. He drew attention to the fact that prior to 1972 the previous Liberal-Country Party Government had spent a certain amount of money on airports when he was Minister. He was not the Minister. Senator Cotton was, if I remember rightly. The Minister also said that during our term of office we spent a certain amount of money and that since then this Government has spent a certain amount of money. I draw attention to the fact that during my time as Minister no safety facilities were neglected or in any way not taken into consideration when departmental reports were brought to my attention. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that a decision, as best I recall, was taken by me as Minister on the relocation of the fire-fighting services and facilities at Mascot Airport to bring them into line with international standards. That decision was taken. As at this time, almost two years after the decision was taken, that facility has not been brought up to international standard, as required.

The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) has a very lengthy letter which is in the form of a direction to the industry in regard to navigation matters.

Mr Morris:

– Do not blow it.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-A11 right, I will not blow it. It clearly indicates that the Government is severely cutting back as far as those facilities are concerned. The Labor Government set up the Road Safety and Standards Authority. This Government dismantled it, with no regard whatever to the thousands of people who are killed and maimed on the roads. That toll could be reduced. I have requested the setting up of a transport accident investigation authority. There has been no move by the Minister in any of these areas. I completely reject the statement that safety in any form was in any way neglected by me as Minister for Transport.

page 2497

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Oil Seeds Levy Bill 1 977.

Oil Seeds Levy Collection and Research Bill 1977.

page 2497

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Immigration-Coastal Surveillance-Uranium Demonstration

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-On 2 June 1977 I raised in this Parliament an immigration fee racket which was being practiced by a Sydney solicitor, a Mr D. P. Khoury who practices under the name of Benjamin and Khoury at 184 Victoria Street, Potts Point. The amount involved was $1,100 which he extracted from a Mr Sums Pal Narayan, a Fijian of Indian origin. No mention was made of this matter in the Australian Press. No mention was made of the racket being practised by this rapacious solicitor. Fortunately the Fiji Times of 15 June 1977 gave it front page treatment. So that our parliamentary record may be complete I ask for leave to have incorporated in Hansard the matters which I raised in the Parliament on 2 June, namely letters from Mr D. P. Khoury, Solicitor, of 1 February 1977 and 10 February 1977, a receipt for $300 dated 16 February 1977, and a letter from Mr Khoury to Mr Narayan of 20 April 1977 seeking a further $500. I have made all these documents available to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) who has agreed to their being incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to have them incorporated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? Leave is granted.

The documents read as follows-

page 2497

BENJAMIN & KHOURY

Solicitors & Attorneys At Law 1 84 Victoria Street, Potts Point 20 1 1 P.O. Box 9 1 2, Potts Point 20 1 1 C.D.E.853 1 February 1977

Mr Suruj Pal Narayan, 3 Polo Street, Revesby2212

Dear Sir, re: Your Application for Permanent Residency

We confirm you recent instructions to act on your behalf in relation to the above matter and advise that the appropriate action has been commenced.

We will contact you in the near future, and advise you of further developments.

Yours faithfully, BENJAMIN & KHOURY

page 2498

BENJAMIN & KHOURY

Solicitors & Attorneys At Law 1 84 Victoria Street, Potts Point 20 1 1 P.O. Box 9 1 2 , Potts Point 20 1 1 C.D.E. 853 10 February 1977

MrS. P. Narayan, 3 Polo Street, Revesby2212

Dear Sir, re: Your Application for Permanent Residency

We please compile the following and forward same to our office, immediately.

  1. . An initial retainer in the sum of $300.00.
  2. Details of your family in Australia, in particular whether they are Australian citizens or permanent residents here.

Your compliance with the above is essential in order that your matter progresses satisfactorily.

Yours faithfully BENJAMIN & KHOURY

page 2498

BENJAMIN & KHOURY

Solicitors & Attorneys At Law 1 84 Victoria Street, Potts Point 20 1 1 P.O. Box 9 1 2, Potts Point 20 1 1 C.D.E. 853 20 April 1977

Mr Suruj Pal Narayan, 3 Polo Street, Revesby2212

Dear Sir, re: Your affairs- Application for permanent residency

We advise that we are now making arrangement for final interviews at the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for you. Further we advise that we are in possession of documents forwarded to us by you including a M47 form which is sufficient at this stage. We request that you forward to us by return mail an amount of $500.00 being continuing retainer in this matter. We would appreciate receiving such within 7 days from the date hereof.

We will advise you as to the current progress in relation to your matter and ask that you continually advise us as to your changes of address so that we can communicate with you immediately.

We trust that the above is to your satisfaction and remain,

Yours faithfully BENJAMIN & KHOURY

page 2498

TRUST ACCOUNT No. 2214

16.2.77

Benjamin & Khoury Solicitors and Attorneys at Law 184 Victoria Street Potts Point 2011 P.O. Box 912, Potts Point 20 11 C.D.E. 853

Phone 357 2866 357 2909

Received from Mr S. Pal Narayan the sum of three hundred dollars only.

Account name S. Pal Narayan. File No. 2057. Re: Application for Permanent Residence. Being for part costs and disbursements. Signed (indecipherable). $300 Bank Cheque.

Mr MARTIN:

-As a result of my raising the facts in Parliament on 2 June 1 977 the facts relating to other cases have come forward. They indicate the extent of the racket which is being practised by this solicitor. I am informed by reliable sources in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that this solicitor has extracted similar amounts of money from more than 600 unfortunate people who are seeking to become residents of Australia and has done absolutely nothing for any of them. Multiply 600 by $ 1 , 000. It comes to a somewhat staggering figure of $600,000. 1 would like to read out some information which I have received subsequent to my speech in this Parliament on 2 June 1977. 1 have statutory declarations. I will read extracts from someof them. I will ask for leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. I have a statutory declaration from Mr Vijay Chand Dean, who at that stage was living at George Street, Burwood. I shall not quote the exact words. I will seek to have it incorporated in Hansard. I will just give the facts. He gave Mr Khoury $250 cash on 18 March 1977 -

Mr James:

– No receipt?

Mr MARTIN:

– He got a receipt that time. It was one of the few that were issued. On 2 1 April 1977 he gave the solicitor another $400. Mr Khoury did nothing. Mr Dean was picked up by departmental officers and told to leave. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the statutory declarations by Mr Vijay Chand Dean and Mrs Nisha Dean and letters from Mr Khoury to Mr Dean of 4 March 1977, 10 March 1977 and 20 April 1977.

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

-Is leave granted? Leave is granted.

page 2499

BENJAMIN & KHOURY

Solicitors & Attorneys At Law 1 84 Victoria Street, Potts Point 20 1 1 P.O. Box 9 12, Potts Point 20 1 1 C.D.E. 853 4th March, 1977

Mr& Mrs V.C. Dean, 2/1 Rowley Street, Burwood2134

Dear Mr & Mrs Dean,

Re: Applications for Permanent Residency

We confirm your recent instructions to act on your behalf in relation to the above matters and advise that the appropriate action has been commenced.

We will contact you in the near future and advise you of further developments.

Yours faithfully, Benjamin & Khoury

page 2499

BENJAMIN & KHOURY

Solicitors & Attorneys At Law 1 84 Victoria Street, Potts Point 20 1 1 P.O. Box 9 1 2, Potts Point 20 1 1 C.D.E. 853 10th March 1977

Mr & Mrs V.C. Dean, 2/1 Rowley Street, Burwood2134

Dear Mr& Mrs Dean,

Re: Your applications for Permanent Residency.

We acknowledge receipt of your Passport photographs together with those of your wife and daughter. We further acknowledge receipt of certificates from Dr R. Ramrakha. We refer to your previous conferences and accordingly advise that the following information should be forwarded to our office forthwith:

  1. Your full personal history.
  2. Your part initial retainer in the sum of $250. Paid in on 18 March 1977.
  3. Details of your current employment.

We await your compliance with these requests and remain,

Yours faithfully, Benjamin & Khoury

page 2499

BENJAMIN & KHOURY

Solicitors & Attorneys At Law 1 84 Victoria Street, Potts Point 20 1 1 P.O. Box912, Potts Point 201 1 C.D.E. 853 20 April 1977

Mr Vijay Chand Dean, 2/1 Rowley Street, Bunvood2134

Dear Sir, re: Your affairs- Application for permanent residency

We advise that we are now making arrangements for final interviews at the Department of Immigration and Ethnic

Affairs for you. Further we advise that we are in possession of documents forwarded to us by you including a M47 form which is sufficient at this stage, we request that you forward to us by return mail an amount of $400.00 being continuing retainer in this matter. We would appreciate receiving such within 7 days from the date hereof.

We will advise you as to the current progress in relation to your matter and ask that you continually advise us as to your changes of address so that we can communicate with you immediately.

We trust that the above is to your satisfaction and remain.

Yours faithfully BENJAMIN & KHOURY

page 2499

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, MRS NISHA DEAN of 4 George Street, Burwood in the State of New South Wales, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

I went to see Mr Khoury with my husband and he told us that he could arrange permanent residence. My husband and I told him we wanted this done legally. We paid him $50 and got a receipt.

Later my husband paid him $250 and another $400 and got no receipt for these amounts.

Every time I visited, which was twice in all, we asked him about permanent residence and he said not to worry, everything will be alright. ‘It will be permanent residence.’

If he wasn’t so specific about permanent residence, we would not have paid him as much money.

I have read the above statement and it is true and correct.

page 2499

N. DEAN

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1900 (as amended).

Subscribed and declared at Five Dock NSW 18 Sept 77 before J. VASSETT, J.P.

page 2499

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, VIJAY CHAND DEAN of 4 George Street, Burwood in the State of New South Wales, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

I went to see Mr Khoury and he said he could arrange permanent residence for my family. He asked for trade papers which I supplied. My wife was with me when Khoury said he could obtain permanent residence for me.

I gave Mr Khoury our two passports, 6 passport photos of each of us (including our 8 year old daughter) and fifty dollars for which he gave a receipt. On 18.3.77 I gave him another $250 cash and got no receipt.

On about 21.4.77 I gave Khoury another $400 in traveller’s cheques (Aust. currency) and got no receipt. Some time later we all went with a Khoury employee to interview with the immigration dept.

After another month the immigration dept told us we must leave in 10 days time.

I have read the above statement and it is true and correct.

page 2499

V.C. DEAN

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 1900 (as amended).

Subscribed and declared at Five Dock NSW 1 8th Sept 77 before J. VASSETT, J.P.

Mr MARTIN:

– In addition, yesterday I received from Fiji a letter, which I will read out, addressed to me at Parliament House, Canberra. Strangely enough, it is from a Mr Surus Narayan- a different person. He is no relation to my original informant. He wrote:

This is to inform you that I had been cheated by an Australian lawyer-

He said ‘cheated’. He continued:

Mr D. P. Khoury. I am sending all the particulars as my proof. After reading the letters you will know everything. Sir, Mr Khoury promised that he will refund my money, give my photos and my references back, but you can see what he has done. He has not done it. I have written to the Law Society of New South Wales and am attaching their reply too.

I have a letter from the Law Society of New South Wales which I will seek later to have incorporated in Hansard. It says in so many words that it investigated the matter. It says:

In this case the information you have furnished does not indicate that the solicitor’s conduct is such as to require or enable the Council to deal with him under the Legal Practitioners Act or otherwise and accordingly no further action will be taken on your inquiry.

In other words, this person who was deprived of his hard-earned money did not get much support from the Law Society of New South Wales. It would appear that the Law Society of New South Wales is intent on protecting rapacious characters such as Khoury, the solicitor. The Law Society of New South Wales in its letter to Mr Narayan in Suva gave him some gratuitous advice. It stated:

However you may think it desirable to take independent legal advice as to whether in the circumstances you have any civil remedy against the solicitor and you are of course perfectly entitled to do so.

But here is the crunch:

But the Society is unable to give you any assistance or express any opinion in this respect.

In other words, this man from Suva who sought to have the activities of Khoury properly investigated got the rubbish from the Law Society of New South Wales. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter from Mr S. Narayan to the Law Society of New South Wales, the reply by the Law Society of New South Wales by letter dated 4 May 1977, and letters from Khoury the solicitor to Mr Narayan of 28 January 1977 and 29 March 1977.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

C/o Mr Adish Narayan P.O. Box 3699 Samabula Suva Fiji

The Law Society of N.S.W. 170PhilpSt,. Sydney

Sir,

I am a Fiji born Indian. My wife and I visited Australia on 28 Nov. 1 976 for a month. After visiting so many places, that place impressed us so much that we thought of applying for permanent residency. After inquiring with some of my friends who are already the citizens of your country I was directed to a lawyer by the name of Mr Khoury. After telling my interest to Mr Khoury ‘s clerk, Michael Tindale, he advised me to pay a fee of $300 straight away, which I did and he asked me to leave our passports and tickets with him. He then gave me a letter and a card and told me if any immigration people came to me and asked me any question, show them the letter and that exactly happened on 24 of March at 9.15 pm. 3 immigration people came to me and asked for our passports, I gave them the letter and they asked me how much I had paid the lawyer. I told them the amount I had paid. They took me alone to the immigration office to check if my lawyer had applied for my permanent residency. After inquiring and checking for half an hour they found out that my lawyer had done nothing for us. He didn’ t even apply for me or send my application to immigration. So 1 had to spend that night in Custody. Next morning 25-3-77 the immigration officers brought me to their office and asked me if I wanted to ring my lawyer. Mr wife came to the immigration office at 9.30 am ana I told her to go and get my lawyer. She came back with Mr Khoury at 2.15 pm. Mr Khoury said to me not a good place to see you. I said Sir, You didn’t even apply for me. Mr Khoury said, what shall we do. I told him my case was at 4.30 pm this afternoon and I want you to attend the Court for me. Mr Khoury said I am very busy today and can attend on Monday. I told him if you wont attend today, I still will have to stay in Custody till Monday. After a while he told me to go back and I will still light for your permanent residency. I said its too late now, please refund my money and I am going back to Fiji. Mr Khoury said alright I will ring my clerk up and advise him to pay me. Since I had to come to Fiji I gave my address to post the money, photos and my references. I waited for more than a week and yesterday I got his reply I am attaching his reply.

Sir, he did nothing for me, so I shall be greatful if you advise Mr Khoury to refund my money.

Yours faithfully Surus Narayan (SURUS NARAYAN)

page 2500

THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

1 70 Phillip Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000. Telephone 232-2511

May 4, 1977

Mr S. Narayan, C/o Mr A. Narayan, P.O. Box 3699, SAMABULA. SUVA. FIJI IS.

Dear Sir,

Re: Khoury, Solicitor

I refer to previous correspondence herein and wish to advise that I have now had the opportunity of examining the reply received from the abovenamed solicitor to your original enquiry.

In dealing with such matters the Council of this Society is concerned primarily with the professional conduct of a solicitor although it must also take into account his personal behaviour in some cases.

If the facts stated by any person making a complaint seem to indicate that the solicitor has been guilty of professional misconduct or unethical conduct he is asked to comment on the statements and the Council then makes an investigation of the facts which may result in action being taken against the solicitor.

In this case the information you have furnished does not indicate that the solicitor’s conduct is such as to require or enable the Council to deal with him under the Legal Practitioners Act or otherwise and accordingly no funher action will be taken on your enquiry.

However, you may think it desirable to take independent legal advice as to whether in the circumstances you have any civil remedy against the solicitor and you are of course perfectly entitled to do so but the society is unable to give you any assistance or express any opinion in this respect

In relation to the question of costs charged by the solicitor you of course have the right to have these taxed before an officer of the Supreme Court. Normally, a solicitor has a lien over the file and papers of the client until such costs and disbursements have been paid.

Yours faithfully, JOHN A. FRANKLIN A. Legal Officer

page 2501

BENJAMIN & KHOURY

Solicitors & Attorneys At Law 1 84 Victoria Street, Potts Point 20 1 1 P.O. Box 9 12, Potts Point 20 1 1 C.D.E. 853 28 January, 1977

Mr & Mrs Suruj Narayan, 1/lToxtethRoad, Glebe, N.S.W.

Dear Sir and Madam, re: Your Applications for Permanent Residency.

We confirm your recent instructions to act on your behalf in relation to the above matters and advise that the appropriate action has been commenced.

We will contact you in the near future and advise you of further developments.

Yours faithfully, BENJAMIN & KHOURY.

page 2501

BENJAMIN & KHOURY

Solicitors & Attorneys At Law 1 84 Victoria Street, Potts Point, 20 1 1 P.O. Box 912, Potts Point. 201 1 C.D.E. 853 29th March, 1977

Suruj Narayan, Esq., C/o Mr Adish Narayan, P.O. Box 3699, Samabula, SUVA FIJI

Dear Sir,

page 2501

RE: APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCY IN AUSTRALIA. INTERIM MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

TO Our costs of and incidental to instructions received to act on your behalf in connection with your affairs, including all necessary attendances, conferences, correspondence and advices and including all necessary representations made by us on your behalf and all due care, skill and consideration to date,SAY-$300.00.

BY Amount paid by you-$300.00.

page 2501

AMOUNT OWED BY YOU TO DATE-NIL

With compliments, BENJAMIN & KHOURY

Mr MARTIN:

– I suggest that all of the matters I have raised today should be investigated fully not only by the Law Society of New South Wales but also by the Law Reform Commission which was set up by the New South Wales Government and, if need be, by the Law Reform Commission which was set up by the Australian Government. To me it seems that there is an open and shut case of false pretences against Khoury. I also suggest that the legal aspects be investigated by the New South Wales Police Department with a view to a charge of false pretences being laid against Khoury.

I raise one other matter. Mr Khoury is not alone in the treatment which he hands out to intending migrants who come to Australia. The New Settlers Federation of Australia, the Secretary of which is Mr Baltinos, is also in on the racket. It charges $ 150-1 grant anyone that it is cheap by Khoury standards- plus $25 membership fee for doing absolutely nothing except exploiting would-be migrants to Australia. In this instance they are mainly Tongans, but Fijians are also included. I know that this matter is in the mind of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), but unfortunately it appears that even he can do very little. In conclusion, I say that people such as these solicitors- Khoury is not the only one- are a disgrace to Australia and a disgrace to their profession. They should be exposed and the full processes of the law should be invoked against them.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– I should like to raise some aspects of the role of the Defence Force, by pointing out something I have pointed out before in this House. Like a famous admiral, I believe in conviction through reiteration. In this case what I want to say is that in my view our defence forces must be organised,- structured and designed to do the things that they will have to do on their own. This requires the Department of Defence to create realistic scenarios of the sorts of things we might have to do on our own- what types of operations, against what level of opposition and what external supply we can expect during such operations. This is very difficult and requires some complex assessments, but we must do it if we wish to have a coherent design for our defence forces. It is difficult, but risks must be run in peace time as well as in war. If we design our defence forces in that manner and if we become involved in wider operations that we are not capable of dealing with on our own and we are operating with allies, our defence forces might not be ideal but they will still be a useful contribution. At least they will be designed to do the things that we have to do on our own.

One thing that we will have to do on our own is conduct surveillance of our surroundings and our approaches. The impending adoption of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone adds an area for surveillance almost the size of continental Australia. This is a major task for our defence forces and for our nation. I should point out one thing about surveillance. There is a distinction between that and reconnaissance. Reconnaissance is what occurs when one is looking for something specifically. If our intelligence is good, we should do a great deal of reconnaissance and very little general surveillance. Surveillance by its nature is extremely wasteful.

Of course, surveillance is only one part of the problem. Ideally we should have a system by which all aircraft and ship targets in the surroundings of Australia are noted, identified and, where appropriate, arrested. This is extremely difficult. I should like to point out some of the problems involved. One suggestion frequently made is that we should use satellites. This is far from being as easy as it seems. One type of satellite, the geostationary satellite- one that is frequently used for communications- by the nature of the problem, must be over the equator and must be at a height of 36,000 kilometres. At that height resolution of targets with existing techniques is quite out of the question. The only way it would be possible would be if the target were prepared to co-operate by continuously transmitting. That does not seem very likely. For military or surveillance purposes a geostationary satellite at the present level of technology is not a reasonable option.

An alternative is to have non-synchronous satellites. They typically are at heights of between 200 and 1,000 kilometres with a rotation period of about 90 minutes. In practice they ‘see’ a strip of the earth about 1,000 kilometres wide beneath their track. With them we could use opticalvisual or infra-red systems or radar. They too have very considerable problems. We would need to have six satellites in phased orbit to cover the approaches to Australia. They would have a life of only one year because of the drag at that height. Finally, resolution-using television is not good. Photography would give better results, but there is the problem of recovering the photographs after they have been taken. The cost of such a system would be about $350m a year, which is more than the Defence Force spends on its total capital program at the moment. So I suggest that satellites as a method of surveillance are not a practical proposition for Australia at the present level of technology.

An alternative is to use over-the-horizon radar in which Australia is in the van of technology in the world. Jindalee, which is operating in Central Australia now on an experimental basis, gives some hope of long-range detection. It operates at high frequencies and bounces its beam off the ionosphere. The trouble is that the ionosphere is not a perfect reflecting surface. In any case, it changes in altitude at different times of the day. Therefore there are problems in identification of targets and the tracking of them. It seems that Jindalee, when developed in a few years time, will give a good long-range capability against aircraft, even low flying aircraft, and may have some capability against small surface craft. In the meantime we are faced with a problem that if the Services are to contribute they have to do so with their existing types of equipment. Therefore I welcome the decision to order new, bigger and longer-range patrol boats as an important contribution to this.

The problem with the Defence Force being involved in surveillance is, firstly, that its operations tend to be uneconomic. Its equipment is far too complex for the relatively simple role of picking up infiltrating fishing boats and so on. It is an uneconomic way of doing it. On the other hand, if the Defence Force acquired simple aircraft, simple patrol craft capable of domg the role economically, such equipment would be very unsatisfactory in a military role. It is a dilemma for which there is no simple solution. The second point of concern is that surveillance of this type in peace time is not an official role of the Defence Force. If the Defence Force is to be used with special equipment for such a role as fishery surveillance, then I think it would be appropriate for that to be charged to the votes of the relevant departments. We are distorting our defence effort if we acquire special equipment for nonmilitary purposes. We may delude ourselves that it is something to do with defence but in fact it has nothing to do with defence.

The third problem is a legal one. If the Defence Force is used for fishery protection, we will run into the constitutional problem that the Commonwealth fisheries Act is applicable only outside the 3-mile limit At least, so far that is all that has been applied. State fisheries legislation applies inside the 3-mile limit and the States, except in the case of Western Australia, have not given the necessary authority to the Commonwealth officers and the Navy to implement the State laws. What we badly need, I think, is a referral particularly by Queensland, for the necessary authority for the Navy to implement the State fisheries Act inside the 3-mile limit.

The final point is that magistrates’ hearings are wasting a great deal of the time of the people who have to arrest and tow a fishing boat in and wait for a hearing. That patrol boat and its crew are not employed on their proper tasks while they are waiting for the legal processes to grind on. We should look very carefully at how we can expedite the handling of such cases. These are all matters which must be cleared up. There is no doubt that the Defence Force must make a contribution to the proper surveillance of the surroundings of this country, but have to see that they are used in the most economic and effective way and not to the detriment of their prime role, which is the defence of this country.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The whole of Australia is aware of last weekend’s great rallies against uranium mining in Australia. They also know the fate of the anti-uranium rally in Queensland. The key factor that made the Brisbane rally different from rallies everywhere else in Australia was the so-called law that is the work of one man, the Premier of Queensland.

It is important that all people of goodwill and especially those in Queensland reflect upon what is now happening in that State. We must all weigh the consequences of ignoring the Queensland Premier’s abuse ofhis powers to make laws. I recall the words of Martin Luther King in his letter to his fellow clergymen who questioned whether his action of demonstrating in Birmingham against an unjust law was unwise and untimely’. He said in part:

I am cognizant of the inter-relatedness of all communities and States. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Throughout history there have always been courageous people who have been prepared to oppose unjust laws- Socrates, Spartacus, Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, Pastor Niemoller in Hitler’s Germany, and Martin Luther King, to name a few. We must draw on the same dedication to freedom today to resist the growth of oppression and abuse of power in our community.

I am deeply concerned about what has happened to the Queensland citizens who rallied to oppose uranium mining. People who oppose uranium mining and export are people of peace and of community. They are people who can see the dangers to their society and mankind that are the consequences of fuelling the nuclear industry and nuclear war. I am especially concerned about the arrest and detention of over 400 people because they were trying to do what every citizen in every other State and Territory of Australia has a right to do. On Saturday, tens of thousands of people outside Queensland exercised that right without incident. The people in Queensland were denied that right. In Queensland last weekend the people had two reasons to make a public protest. One was the uranium issue; the other was their loss of freedom. They rallied to oppose an unjust law. They rallied in the defence of freedom not only for themselves but for us all. I say ‘us all’ because I am very much concerned that the leadership of this present Government will move down the same path as the Premier of Queensland. They will follow the trail that he has set. Once the first step is taken it is hard to stop; it is hard to turn back. The same erosion of established rights that is occurring in Queensland is going on in a more subtle way right across the nation. We cannot ignore what is happening in Queensland because, as Martin Luther King spelt out to us, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106 the debate is interrupted. I put the question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2503

UNEMPLOYMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The increasing evidence that the Fraser Government’s Budget strategy is intensifying unemployment.

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 HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

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

AYES: 70

NOES: 29

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2504

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I present the report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled ‘A Year’s Experience ‘.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– by leave-The report which has been tabled is the third report from the Standing Committee on Expenditure. Unlike the two previous reports which were on specific programs or activities, this report entitled ‘A Year’s Experience’ describes and reviews the work of the Committee since its establishment on 29 April 1976. Whilst the report contains recommendations, they are not central to it and consequently appear only in the body of the report. They are separate from the reports on accommodation for married servicemen and overseas representation which were tabled earlier this year. Central to this report is the Committee’s view on its role and functions. After more than a year’s experience it is possible to distinguish three broad types of functions:

Firstly, the examination and evaluation of the processes used in the planning, management and control of expenditure; secondly, the evaluation of programs to find out, amongst other things, whether there are alternative ways of obtaining policy objectives more efficiently or at lower cost; and thirdly, examination of programs and activities to see whether they are being administered with economy and efficiency.

At this stage of the Committee’s evolution it is difficult to say which of these functions will be more important. However, it appears that, commencing with the Budget Estimates inquiry, the Committee will be placing greater emphasis on evaluation of the processes used in the planning, management and control of expenditure. Taken together, those three functions represent a totally unique opportunity for a parliamentary committee to examine government expenditure. At the moment the full Committee is inquiring into the Budget Estimates, their formulation and use. One sub-committee is inquiring into the expenditure of the Commonwealth Department of Health and another sub-committee is investigating the defence services homes scheme, its efficiency as well as alternative methods of delivery of the loan benefit either through equivalent cash grants or second mortgages. In the report the Committee has attempted to relate its functions to those of other parliamentary committees of financial scrutiny. We have found that there is sufficient work for many parliamentary committees and that there have not been any problems in relation to the duplication of inquiries. Our close contact with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and informal contacts with other committees should ensure a continued smooth working relationship for the future.

In general the Committee has found the Public Service to be fairly co-operative. However, there is one matter on which we have been obliged to report to the House, particularly as it raises the question of the right of Parliament to receive information from statutory bodies. When inquiring into the activity of a particular statutory body the Committee was told that it had no jurisdiction to do so because the Act which established that body gave its management entire control over its affairs and concerns. The Committee sought the advice of Mr Speaker on this matter but, soon after this, it received another letter, this time signed by the permanent head himself, asking the Committee to disregard the earlier communication. Co-operation was promised and was forthcoming. It should continue to be so. Because the matter was settled to the satisfaction of the Committee the Department will not be identified. We recall the same experience of Senate Estimates Committee B in 1971 in relation to the Broadcasting Control Board and the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

As mentioned before, the important principle is the right of the Parliament to receive information relating to expenditure that Parliament has authorised. Using section 29(3) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 as its guide, the Committee has recommended that Bills that establish statutory bodies or that amend the functions of existing bodies contain a clause requiring that body to furnish information on its performance to either House of the Parliament or to any parliamentary committee. The contribution that the Committee has made and can make to public scrutiny is in very large part due to members of all three political parties working towards this common goal. The excellent attendance figure at Committee meetings reflects the keenness of both Government and Opposition members. I express special thanks to the Deputy Chairman, the Honourable Frank Stewart, who has helped both the former Chairman and me. The Committee will continue to present general reports of the type just tabled as the occasion demands. We believe that this report should make a significant contribution to exarnination of the work and the worth of financial committees of the Parliament. I commend the report to the House.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2505

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the Committee’s report on and transcript of evidence of its inquiry into Industrial Support for Defence Needs and Allied Matters. I seek leave to make a short statement in relauon to the report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAMER:

-This report deals with the electronics industry and is tabled as the remaining chapter to the interim report tabled by me in the House on 2 June 1977 and by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack in the Senate on 3 June 1977. 1 draw the attention of the House to two minor factual amendments the Committee wishes to make to the interim report. These arise from information or queries received after the interim report was tabled. They are, firstly, to substitute in paragraph 5.73 the words ‘and experience in the field of unmanned flight’ for the words ‘in the remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) field’., and in the same paragraph substitute ‘This background would have considerable relevance to design and development of a remotely piloted vehicle.’ for the words ‘This experience would be very relevant to the design and development of a cruise type missile.’; and, secondly, to substitute in paragraph 7.12 the words ‘The boilers and turbines for the main engines in all three Daring destroyers were made at Cockatoo although some forgings and castings for the machinery were imported because at that time suitable capacity to produce these materials did not exist in Australia. The gearboxes were made at the Ordnance Factory, Bendigo. All of the armament (i.e. guns, torpedo tubes and anti-submarine mortars) was manufactured in Australia, also at Bendigo.’ for the words ‘but also some of the armament as well as the engines for the Daring Class ships.’ As I said, these are solely matters of fact or clarification brought to the Committee’s attention after the tabling of the interim report.

In regard to the electronics industry, the subject of the report tabled today, the Committee noted a substantial decline in recent years not only in size but also in range of capabilities. The Committee has now been led to conclude that Australia is now more heavily dependent on overseas sources for supply of its defence, electronic, electro-mechanical equipment and supporting spares than at any time since World War II. A large proportion of the more sophisticated equipment in modern weapons systems, such as aircraft, ships or tanks, is of a multi-disciplinary nature. Avionics equipment is an example. The electronics industry has had only limited exposure to the design, production or maintenance of this typg of equipment and has had little opportunity to gain experience in the integration of such equipment into more extensive systems.

In some areas where expertise has been developed over the years, particularly in the communications field, there are now definite signs of waning competence. The components section of the industry has suffered a major cutback in its capabilities. Together with a severe reduction in the size of the consumer products industry, this has resulted in a substantial loss of professional, sub-professional and skilled trades personnel. Also it has discouraged young people from training into the industry.

It seems to the Committee that, in the course of Industries Assistance Commission inquiries into electronics equipment, there has been completely inadequate recognition given to the considerable defence importance of the electronics industry. The resultant recommendations, which appear to have been based on purely theoretical grounds and presumably on the assumption that Australia will have continuing access to overseas sources of supply, have greatly weakened the industry’s base and its ability to expand effectively in an emergency when those sources may no longer be available. The Committee is firmly of the view that there is not now the capability in the industry to perform the range of tasks seen by the Department of Defence as being the rriinimum necessary and that there is not sufficient defence use being made of the industry to allow it to achieve even that minimum level. It considers this to be an untenable position and recommends that an examination be undertaken as a matter of urgency by the Defence (Industrial) Committee into the present shortcomings of the industry, the range of electronic and allied technologies in which, from the defence viewpoint, it should be involved and the actions required to ensure the achievement and sustenance of an adequate level of competence and capacity. The Committee has concluded that there is need for consistency of government policy so that decisions by industry concerning urgently required long term investment in upgrading facilities and manufacturing techniques can be taken with confidence.

In dealing with the aerospace industry, the Committee concluded that skills already acquired in the pilotless aircraft field should be built on and recommended that the design and development of a cruise type missile should be undertaken. I should make it clear that there are many cruise type missiles, not all as complicated as the new United States strategic cruise missile. That is the purpose of the amendment I suggested earlier. Ikara, for instance, is an example of a cruise type missile. The Committee recommended also in the earlier report that in respect of major new aerospace equipment programs under investigation, particularly the TFF project, Australian industry participation should be m those areas conferring continuing support capability, technology gain and skill enhancement, with special attention being given to work related to the engines and the avionics equipment. The Committee repeats these recommendations as being of equal importance in the potential to run a substantial work load of defence significance in the electronics industry.

With regard to the matter of tendering for offset work, the Committee has noted the concern of the industry with the high costs in which it can become involved. It strongly maintains that reasonable assistance in meeting these costs should be given by the Department of Defence because frequently the industry has had to put a lot of effort, much of it wasted, into meeting the tendering requirements of several potential overseas suppliers for a particular item when only one supplier can ultimately succeed in obtaining the order. The Committee has concluded that, as a means of increasing its competence, the electronics industry should be given greater exposure to more up-to-date defence electronic and avionic-type equipment by a larger input of appropriate maintenance work by the Services. The Committee cannot conclude its consideration of this industry without expressing its deep concern at the present seriously inadequate state of defence capability in general, particularly its quite limited competence in design, manufacture and support of multi-discipline type equipment that plays such a major part in current weapons systems. Electronics in one form or another is the key to the Defence Forces’ ability to deploy and to fight.

This report on the electronics industry completes the Committee’s survey of the key areas of the Australian defence industry. The Committee has made a large number of specific recommendations to improve the situation. I think that I should make it clear to the House that these were not made lightly and the Committee would not be satisfied to see them brushed aside lightly. The Government must govern but we, the legislature- the Parliament- have the right to inquire into government actions, to ask questions and to require answers. I make it clear that the Committee will not be satisfied until it receives answers from the Government on all the recommendations it has made, answers which satisfy the Committee that its recommendations have been considered honestly. I hope I have made it clear that the Committee will not be satisfied with a patronising pat on the head and a pigeonholed report. It would be exaggerating to suggest that the Committee was impressed with the reply to its interim report by the Defence Department. In this, the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) said, in effect, that the report was worthy but, as it was based on a strategic assessment his Department did not accept, he did not propose to do anything about it. It is true that the Committee set out clearly the strategic assumptions on which its recommendations were based and that these included an examination of the consequences of this country being isolated from overseas supply. This is a remote but not impossible contingency for which support comes from a recent statement by Admiral Zumwalt, a former member of the United States Chiefs of Staff that, in the event of a global war, the United States Navy would be forced to abandon the Western Pacific.

Personally I would be happier about the Defence Department’s rejection of the Committee’s strategic assumptions if I believed that it had some strategic assumptions, perhaps necessarily secret, of its own. But I am far from sure that this is so. I do not argue that we should endeavour to identify a particular enemy. By the time such an enemy is identifiable it is probably too late to prepare. But what we do need is a concept of what sort of operations we might have to undertake, against what level of opposition, with what warning time, and with what possibility of overseas support or supply. Without such clear assumptions, proper planning is impossible. Of course this is difficult but it is essential that such assessments should be made. Risks must be run in peace as in war. If one does not have a coherent defence planning framework, the whole defence machine wobbles off in meaningless disarray.

We have provided such a framework and have made many suggestions as to the consequences of such a framework on defence industry. We wish to see a proper response to our suggestions from the Department of Defence. A further concern is that we have not been satisfied that the past submissions from the Department of Defence to the IAC have properly represented the needs of the defence industry, perhaps because the Department feared that if it was too persuasive it would find the cost of that assistance charged to the Defence vote. But an accounting procedure introduced during the reign of Charles II must not be permitted to destroy our defence industries. The Committee intends to monitor future Defence Department submissions to the IAC on key defence industries and if it is not satisfied with the submission it will make its own. That will be an interesting precedent.

I would like before I conclude to thank the members of the sub-committee, Senator Bishop, the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil), the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Short), the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) and the staff members Mr Hills, Mr Barton, Mrs Quinn and the adviser Mr Fleming. They have all worked long hours in the preparation of this report. It is, I think, a valuable report, the most comprehensive on this subject ever presented to the Parliament. Its implementation is important to this nation and as it is a unanimous report by members from both sides of the House if it is not implemented during the term of this Parliament I am sure we will all take action to ensure that it is implemented in the term of the next Parliament.

Mr Bryant:

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Garland:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 2507

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr GILLARD:
Macquarie

-On behalf of the chairman of the Publications Committee, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), I present the Sixteenth Report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members.

Report-by leave-adopted.

page 2507

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-by leave-I want to remind the House of the importance of the report presented a few minutes ago. As my friend the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) has pointed out it is certainly the most comprehensive examination of the defence industry carried out in this country by a parliamentary committee and it is probably the most searching one that any committee associated with the defence industry has brought down. Today’s report is of course about the electronics industry and the keynote of that is the continuing decline in the capacity of that industry to support Australian defence services right across the board. I think it is part of the intellectual challenge to the people of Australia that they recognise the need to support such an industry. As the honourable member for Isaacs has pointed out, we have no specific guidelines, one might say, as to what defence is about. Therefore we have to decide at this stage, until we have decided on other terms for a defence system, that we will aim at selfsufficiency in the defence industrial area.

The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has worked very hard. Its members visited innumerable workshops, airfields and shipyards. They crawled through submarines, walked up and down ships under construction and so on. They talked to shipyard people. It has been a very thorough examination indeed and there is an immense body of information contained in the evidence placed before the Committee. We are confident that a lot of other factors are concerned with this industry apart from those concerned simply with defence because there is the intellectual spin-off from the work that is done by our defence scientists. We underrate the capacity of the Australian science industry, if we can call it that, to produce work up to the standards produced in the rest of the world and in fact in some areas work which surpasses those standards. I hope that all members of this House will make a careful study of this document because I think this is one of the prerequisites for their continued employment in this place and that the suggestions that the honourable member for Isaacs, who was the chairman of the subcommittee, has placed before the House will be pursued with tenacity in the new parliament so that whoever is the Minister for Defence, and, of course, it will be one of my colleagues after the elections, will at least know that there are people in this place who are concerned to ensure that the work of this Committee is carried through.

I would like to thank those members of the Committee who worked with me. I support the remarks of the honourable member for Isaacs particularly in relation to the staff and also in relation to all those people who appeared before the Committee, many of whom were circumscribed by proscriptions imposed upon them by government departments and so on. In particular I would like to say thanks to the officers of the South Australian departments who for all sorts of reasons, some of them I presume flowing from the kind of government that exists in that State but perhaps from some internal history of the South Australian system, always seem to be frank, much more candid and co-operative before committees on which I sit than any other government officers in Australia.

page 2508

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1977-78

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 26 October.

Second Schedule.

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $56,824,000.

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

-The debate on the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department gives an opportunity in a very short space of time to raise a number of very important matters. The most important from the point of view of people in Australia would be legal aid and whether the funds which are provided are adequate. I have a statement from the Attorney-General indicating that he feels that sufficient funds have been made available. In the course of that statement he clearly indicates that the commitment to the profession has been increased from $12m to $ 12.6m. My submission would be that $0.6m is not a sufficient increase to meet the needs of legal aid. If one were to look at this in the context of the inflationary situation one would see that the increase falls well below the inflationary level. The important consideration is that people who need legal aid cannot afford to wait. If they have problems in litigation or advice on matters generally. They are entitled to get legal aid. The imposition of a means test and other matters seriously prejudice the rights of people.

I have in front of me a letter written by Pike and Pike, solicitors of Sydney on behalf of a client whose name I will not mention. This firm says that is has a client who is an invalid pensioner aged 62 and his only assets are a house, which is his home, and a very old motor car. That is the extent of his assets. He desperately needs legal aid, as the firm says. He has a major problem. His solicitors sought legal aid and were alarmed to find that it is considered that this gentleman does not meet the criteria on the basis of need. The firm makes the point:

We find the decision incomprehensible and alarming. If an applicant such as our client -

That is, an invalid pensioner- cannot succeed in an application for legal aid, may we ask who would?

That is the present problem in Australia. Who would qualify if the means test is to be so rigidly applied? It is a complete contradiction of the statement made by the Attorney-General that the guidelines that are operating will enable some discretion in certain cases where applicants may be outside the monetary limits. This is an exact example of applications for legal aid being denied where the need is great. I do not think anybody in Australia would believe that a person in receipt of a social security pension of any type and who would have already had to meet a means test to qualify for a pension, would fail in the means test for legal aid. That is the direct position here. This is an important matter. If we are to deal with legal aid, it must be dealt with on the basis of need. Legal aid denied is justice denied, and there is no opportunity to correct it later. The Treasury dominance of the situation should not be allowed to continue.

We want to adopt the Sackville report which says that there ought to be an independent commission which is not married to the profession as such but which has on it representatives of the people and of the consumers who can advise the Government as to the amount of legal aid that should be given. We then would get the independence of the people and the opportunity to give advice to the Government on the specific issue that people have a need in a legal area. People do not go and seek legal aid on the basis that they want a trial run on any matter. I am concerned with real issues of need. I would like the Government to have another serious look at the allocation that has been made.

Another most important matter which is very topical in Queensland at present is the question of human rights. Human rights do not exist in Queensland. That is the first thing to say. The Human Rights Commission Bill introduced into this House does nothing to protect the rights of people in Queensland. We nave seen in recent days, and particularly last week, examples of where people were not entitled to exercise their rights in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that is, the right to demonstrate on any issue that they thought was proper as long as they did it in a peaceful fashion. The people concerned did that. Four hundred of these people were arrested and charged. I draw attention to the fact that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has in it a number of articles which set out the rights of people. These articles recognise the dignity of the human person. The covenant also has in it a number of measures which guarantee these rights. Article 2 is one of them. It states that if a person feels his rights have been interfered with in any way the question should be dealt with by a competent judicial tribunal. We do not see that happening in Queensland. The question of holding a march is left to the Police Commissioner. No judicial tribunal is involved. Let us look at some of the other articles in the International Covenant. We see that everyone is entitled to the right of thought, conscience and freedom. People have the right to hold opinions without interference. Article 21 provides:

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognised.

Article 22 states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Not one of those rights can be maintained in Queensland at present. The legislation introduced into this Parliament which has not yet been debated will do nothing to protect people’s rights in Queensland. The legislation virtually establishes a commission which will investigate matters. The best it could do on the question of State law in Queensland would be to examine the legislation and perhaps make a report to a Federal Minister; that is as far as it could go.

I have been given the transcript of the Premiers Conference held in April this year. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), together with the then Attorney-General, Mr Eflicott, were anxious to introduce legislation on human rights. At that time it might well be said that they were trying to introduce legislation which would encompass State law. That is most essential. What do we find? I find, reading from the transcript the Premier of Queensland saying that he will not have a bar of it. The expression he used was:

We will not be in it

He went on:

This is like the environment. We have the Commonwealth butting in and telling us what we can do and what we cannot do.

The Premier of Queensland would not agree. He said that it would not be long before Ministers like Viner and Newman were going to Queensland and trying to tell that State what to do. He said that his State had had enough of them. Unfortunately for the people of Australia that sort of nonsense, that sort of mental thuggery and that sort of suggestion that the people of Queensland will have to put up with what that Premier wants, prevailed. Instead of having effective legislation providing for uniformity throughout the nation, along with an effective piece of legal rights legislation in accordance with the International Covenant, we have nothing except an advisory commission or a commission that can only examine.

The problems that arose in Queensland last week will increase fourfold. People will not be mtimidated by a Premier who does not adhere to the principles of human dignity and will not give people their rights. Let us look at the clerics in Queensland. They are well meaning people who understand the rights of others. Some 16 of them from all the churches objected strongly to the Queen about the actions that the police used in Brisbane last week. What sort of abuse did they get? The Premier comes out and says that they are communists and atheists. This is the extraordinary gentleman who claims to have the title of a democratic leader. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that a Bill of Rights has an advantage. It allows the diffusing of political grievances as they arise. Improper laws and practices only encourage violence. That should be recognised by the Premier of Queensland.

Finally I make the point in respect of litigation at present- I am not talking about the litigation; I am talking about the question of it- proceeded with by Mr Sankey. I wrote to the Prime Minister asking whether an inquiry should be made as to where Mr Sankey was getting his funds to prosecute former Ministers of the Labor Government. I said that it was worthwhile reporting that Mr Sankey ‘s solicitor, who is in Canberra, virtually acknowledged that he had received substantial sums of money to pay the costs already incurred by Mr Sankey. The amount could be as high as $100,000. The question of maintenance arises. If somebody is mamtaining an action- in other words providing the funds to Sankey- they are liable to be guilty of a criminal act. I asked the Prime Minister to investigate. I received a letter in reply stating that he had been advised that there was no concern because there was no offence against Commonwealth law. That is ridiculous. Mr Sankey ‘s solicitors are in Canberra, quite within the federal jurisdiction. It is proper that the source of those funds should be investigated. It could well be that a malicious person is putting up substantial sums of money to affect people on this side of the House.

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

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-I just want to speak in relation to some of the matters that the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has mentioned. He referred to legal aid. The fact is that the amounts appropriated for legal aid under this Government increased from something like $12m in 1975-76 to, I think, $20.2m this year. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent. Last year the amount expended was $ 17.1m. This year it has gone up by a couple of million dollars. In other words, this Government has honoured its election promise. It has, in fact, increased the moneys available for legal aid around this country. From the time the Government came to power it is quite clear that very lengthy discussions took place with the States for the purpose of establishing a rationalised legal aid system in this country. These discussions have gone on assiduously so far as the Commonwealth is concerned since early last year.

At this stage legal aid commissions are about to commence in Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and probably in South Australia. Those legal aid commissions will, we believe, add considerably to the amount of legal aid funds available to the community. The effect of the rationalisation of the institutions that exist in the various States with the Australian Legal Aid Office will be that more funds will flow to the public. It is true that the means test was regulated m March last year, but that means test has applied ever since. It has, in a satisfactory way, meant that people who are really in need of legal aid have been getting it. We know that legal aid, in proportional terms, has basically gone to people who are involved in family law matters. I think that more than 80 per cent of the legal aid vote in fact goes to family law cases. I and others have said that there is a great need to work out in this area some sort of lump sum fee that will, in effect, mean that the legal aid vote for family law will be spread amongst more people in need. I know that this matter has been looked at by the Attorney-General’s Department with a view to ensuring that instead of there being a bottomless pit for legal aid- this often occurs in custody and maintenance cases that are defended- in future a lump sum fee will be made available. . The person who is legally aided will have to face die same situation as a non-legally aided personnamely, a limited amount of funds will be available. As regards the honourable member’s reference to the form of the legal aid commission, I remind honourable members that the legal aid ordinance that was prepared for the Australian Capital Territory, and is now in operation, provides for a broad span of community interest. It is not only lawyers who are involved in the Commission. Others from the social service and consumer areas are involved. The salaried lawyers made submissions that they should be on the Commission and an undertaking was given to them that within time that would be reconsidered. But basically, what the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith mentionednamely, a broadly based commission- is proposed for the Australian Capital Territory.

He also mentioned the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission Bill 1977 was introduced on 1 June this year. That Bill followed discussions which took place between the Commonwealth and the State Attorneys General with a view to ensuring that there would be a system of human rights that would, in effect, cover all law within this country. The honourable member well knows that, and he well knows that it was the Government’s desire that, if possible, there should be a broadly based commission. However, we cannot force the States into institutions that they do not want to go into. It is not only Queensland that does not want to be part of this Commission. Indeed, the Labor States of New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania, do not want to go with the Commonwealth into a human rights commission which would be broadly based. However, they agreed to sit down with the Commonwealth and discuss further the legislation. This agreement came out at the Premiers Conference to which the honourable member for KingsfordSmith referred. There are currently in train arrangements for discussions to take place one hopes in the reasonably near future that will lead to a more broadly based approach to human rights in this country.

I think there is one aspect at which we should be looking, and that is whether there could be evolved a declaration of human rights that could be adopted by this Parliament and also by every other parliament in the country. Honourable members will know that in Canada there is a declaration of human rights. It is, in effect, part of Canada’s constitutional documents. It would be a good thing in this country if we were able to use the covenant on civil and political rights to formulate legislation which formed the basis of a declaration of human rights in this country. It could then act as a guide to legislation in this Parliament and in every other parliament in the country. It could, in effect, be a broadly based, broadly stated document. It could, in effect, be almost a constitutional document although one would have to agree it could be amended by parliaments or it could be departed from. At least it would be a step- a very significant step- towards getting a broadly based system in this country.

The other purpose for which such a document could be used is as a guide to human rights committees or commissions which would hear applications from members of the public who claimed that in some way their human rights were being infringed. For instance, if somebody said that he was discriminated against in his employment or in some other way- even on a racial or sexist basis- he would be able to go to a commission and put the matter before the commission. The commission could look at it and make a decision. If the decision was one that was capable of being enforced by some order which could be registered, say, in the Federal court or some State court, a human rights system could be evolved in this country which would be broadly based and effective. May I say, however, that this system could not operate unless there was full cooperation between certainly some of the States and the Commonwealth. I have in mind that there could be a human rights committee, for instance, established under State legislation in New South Wales- just to take an examplewhich could have jurisdiction conferred on it by a Federal Act. That committee could administer a State Act and a Federal Act relating to human rights. By that method there could, as I say, be a broadly based situation where human rights could be enforced across the board. As I have said, reference was made to legal aid and also to human rghts. One other matter relating to costs has been raised but I will leave that to other honourable members to deal with.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The matter that was raised by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) concerning human rights interests me because the fact is that the former Attorney-General committed the Government to the establishment of the Human Rights Commission by 1 July. A Bill has been introduced but, of course, not yet debated. It is possible that here again we might have another broken promise. The former Attorney-General who preceded me in this debate had the original intention of involving the States in the preparation of this Human Rights Commission and matters associated with it But it is a fact that the Premier of Queensland scotched this idea at the April Premiers Conference when he told the Prime Minister and, I think, the former AttorneyGeneral, that he would ‘not have a bar of the Commission’. Of course, in the light of the current erosion of civil liberties in Queensland one can understand the motivation for the Premier’s action. This Human Rights Commission is to be based on the International Covenant on Civil and Policy Rights of 1 966 which was signed by the Labor Government 16 days after taking office in December 1972. As I understand it, the matter has still not been ratified by the present Government. I suppose there are many Australians and many members of Parliament from both sides of the House who are concerned at the breaches of these principles. At least five Articles of the Covenant appear to have been breached by the Queensland Government. Article 2 which relates to discrimination has certainly been breached in my view so far as the treatment of Aboriginals and women are concerned. The Queensland Government stands in breach of Article 19, which states: . . . everyone shall have the right to hold opinions and the right to freedom of expression.

Similarly, Article 2 1 has been disregarded. That Article provides for the right of peaceful assembly. Article 22 deals with freedom of association and Article 25 deals with the right to universal and equal suffrage. Clearly, the Queensland Government is in breach of that proposal when we have regard to the incredible gerrymander that operates in that State where the government of the day is elected on about 24 per cent of the votes. It is certainly not part of the so-called free world. As I see it, there is a need for human rights to be uniform throughout Australia. There must be power to invoke judicial remedies for breaches. It is clear that this Government puts States rights before human rights. I think it has to be acknowledged that there has been some neglect, some lack of example and lack of leadership on the part of the Fraser Government in bringing die States to the point of meeting the requirements of that international objective.

I want to say something about the legal aid issue, which has been raised by the honourable member for Kingsford -Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) and by the honourable member for Wentworth who preceded me in the debate. As I understand it, the Budget allocation for legal aid in 1977-78 is $ 19.2m, plus an additional $600,000 which was thrown in subsequently as a pre-election announcement and which no doubt is designed to win back some of those private practitioners who rely on government funds to supplement the income they receive from their practice. The allocation is made up of $ 15.3m, plus additional unspecified payments to the States. Those payments are to be made only to the extent that the States are prepared to establish legal aid commissions. There is a degree of option, and the extent to which provision for legal aid will be made, will vary from Sate to State. I believe that is a very unfortunate situation. As is the case with all social welfare programs since 1975, this allocation is reduced in real terms. It is true that the amount of money allocated is greater than it has been previously ‘ but, in real terms, having regard to inflation, the amount is effectively reduced. Plans for the expansion of the program into country areas and outlying suburbs where such a service is desperately needed have obviously gone down the dram.

The legal aid commissions which the Government is seeking to impose upon the States are to be dominated by the profession; community groups and representatives of organisations which deal with recipients of legal aid on a daytoday basis are not to be represented. I believe that that is very unfortunate. It is a departure from the principles and the concepts which the former Labor Government initiated. There is a real risk that any legal aid scheme controlled by the profession will concentrate heavily on those areas of legal work which the profession is used to handling, which can provide a quick turnover and which bring in maximum financial rewards. With the support of government nominees, many people in the profession, in my view, will endeavour to avoid law reform and community development work. Attempts to devote resources to environmental, Aboriginal and other minority group problems for litigation, submission and representation at inquiries will continue to be ignored. A case in pomt is the Budget allocation for meeting the cost of public hearings on environmental matters. The allocation to cover the cost of such public hearings has been reduced to $65,000 this year compared with $507,268 last year, a 78 per cent reduction. Much could be said about the cuts in expenditure in that area.

I believe that any system of legal aid should have funds to devote to law reform and preventative law, through working arrangements with social welfare agencies of the shop front style of legal aid to bridge the gap between those who understand the maze which is the legal system and those whom the system abuses and ignores. For too long the law has been cloistered and the prerogative of the articulate and the better educated. The Australian Legal Aid Office was created to serve the people who need legal aid the most, those who know little about the benefits and rewards which the legal system can confer on those who understand. As a result of the Government’s outdated guidelines and restrictive means test, many people who now recognise the benefits of using the legal system are still excluded from doing so.

The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith made reference to a case in point. I mention another one. It involves a person whose only asset was a home valued at $25,500 and who had less than $25 in the bank. He owned a 1967 Holden and his total income which amounted to $47.10 a week was derived from an invalid pension. He was refused legal aid as his adjusted income exceeded the allowable limit by $3. As bis solicitor pointed out in a letter to the then Attorney-General, such a decision is both incomprehensible and alarming. It raises the question of just who is entitled to legal aid under the management of this Government.

It is true that legal aid has been sent off in specialised directions and that many people who have ordinary cases of litigation are excluded from receiving it if they are not covered by such provisions as the Family Law Act. So, I believe that the Government has broken a promise in this regard. There are people throughout the country who are waiting for the return of a Labor government so that the principles associated with a decent legal aid system can be reinstituted.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

– I rise to speak on the estimates for the AttorneyGeneral’s Department to counter some of the arguments that were put forward by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) who preceded me and also to speak on the Australian Legal Aid Office and some aspects of legal aid. First of all, the Queensland Government comes in for quite a deal of criticism, unfairly at the best of times, about some of the legislation that it introduces. I simply wish to rebuff some of the arguments that have been used previously. No doubt the law gives all humans the right to peaceful assembly. I believe that under the law everybody should have the same rights as those people who wish to demonstrate. Obviously the reference made to that aspect of the legislation which deals with the rights of individuals in Queensland and which prevents peaceful assembly is not correct. People can assemble peacefully in the State of Queensland but they should ensure that it is not at the inconvenience of the travelling public. Our roads are meant for motor traffic and not for pedestrians who would like to sprawl themselves all over the roads and thereby hold up the normal activities of the law abiding people. They have the right to assemble, that point was not made previously.

Mention has been made of the gerrymander in Queensland. Perhaps the learned gentleman who is trying to interject and who has not been to that State does not realise that the basis of the present electoral Act in Queensland was laid by a Labor Government.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-It does not make it right at all.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– It does not make it right; I will confirm that. The experience of three years of Labor Government would confirm that because Labor does something it does not make it right. I think that the Australian people would indicate that the honourable member is correct in his assertion that what Labor says is not necessarily right.

I rise on these estimates because I get a little sickened by this continued reference to Queensland. The last census shows that there has been a transfer of population to that northern State from the southern States; so there must be something up there that appeals to those people. It certainly is not a Labor Parliament or a Labor Government. So perhaps it would not be a bad idea for the learned gentleman or others to ponder on that fact that that is the situation.

Having defended, and I think quite capably, our own Queensland Government, I wish to deal now with the important matter of the Legal Aid Office. We have heard that all that the Labor Government did was not right. I believe that when the Legal Aid Office was established it was viewed with suspicion at the outset not only by the public but also by the legal fraternity. I am happy to say that it has now found acceptance within the Australian community. It fulfils a very real need for those people who do not have access to other legal advice or representation. In Queensland, this program is associated with people who are dedicated to providing high quality legal advice and representation. The legal aid officers throughout Queensland would be a good example of this. Whilst the program was viewed at first with suspicion, this impression has now been corrected. It has the compensating effect of more people requiring those services and that aid. I am not sure whether the number of officers in those branches is sufficient at this stage to do justice to the requirements now made of the service.

The mobile service which is operated in conjunction with the Legal Aid Office could, I believe, also be expanded, particularly in those States that have vast areas and scattered populations. I do not see why those scattered populations should be denied access to advice which is offered in a provincial or capital city. I know that this matter is under consideration. Certainly in Queensland moves have been made to make sure that these services are extended. Unfortunately it is not always possible to get the number of people required to service properly these areas. The service has started. I hope it will go forward.

Under the new federalism scheme the Legal Aid Office which is gradually coming under the care or attention of the States has, I believe, a few problems at which we must look very carefully. We must make sure that these services are adopted by the States without the effects and auahty of the service presently being given by te Australian Legal Aid Office being adulterated. I believe this could be a tendency, particularly where legal aid was also offered by the State concerned. Perhaps certain bias and preconceptions could lead to a lessening of the quality of the service. I would not like to see that. I would like the Commonwealth to retain some oversight, at least in the interim, until the proper transfer has been effected.

It has been suggested that in Queensland the Legal Aid Office should be taken over by the Public Curator Office. I think this would be very dangerous and would not be in the interest of members of the public who would need the service. The Public Curator Office would not only give advice. to those people who need it but cannot get it ordinarily but also provide a service for which the public pays. I believe there could be a real conflict of interest. I hope that as the legal fraternity in Queensland has accepted the proposal the service could be absorbed by the State to make sure that the high quality of service is maintained and continued. I pay tribute to employees of the Australian Legal Aid Office, particularly those in Queensland, who are currently giving this service.

I believe it is also necessary to mention briefly the Aboriginal Legal Services, although they are not administered by the Attorney-General’s Department. There is a thought abroad, not only among the white population but also the coloured population, that the Services in some directions can be a very divisive instrument. They are dividing and not bringing together the various groups in Australia. The suggestion has been offered to me on more than one occasion that perhaps there should be only one legal aid service available to everybody, irrespective of colour, creed, religion or politics. I think the suggestion could be taken into account. It would lessen costs and would make available a more effective service for everybody.

Could I also suggest that the attitude to marriage celebrants be closely examined by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). These people are not always available to the small townships, areas and communities throughout outback Australia on the same per capita basis as apparently has been the basis of their appointment in the past Certainly the need is as desperate in the outback as it is in other places. For example, one person is allocated to two mining townships which are more than 60 miles apart. This person is not capable of giving the service that is required. I believe that in cases such as this the vast areas and the conditions of appointment should be looked at afresh, with a view to giving the best representation and the best availability of such services to all people throughout outback Australia.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-My contribution to the debate on the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department relates to two factors. One relates to the deception of the Government in respect of Bills and issues such as human rights. The second relates to the quality of the judiciary which presides over courts, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory, and the necessity for justice to be done not only in the passing of sentence on persons who are found guilty but in respect of persons who are charged and kept in custody for months waiting for those charges to be heard.

We on this side of the chamber have become accustomed to a long series of Bills from the Government which turn out to be simply elaborate window-dressing and which do not achieve anything. One of the first signs of the deception to which I referred was the insertion of a section in the Human Rights Commission Act which provided that the law would come into force on a date to be proclaimed. I want the Committee to remember those words. Those dates of proclamation always seem to be a long way off. The Acts are held in reserve, as it were, for a suitable public relations exercise. The Government can then take the credit for initiating far-reaching and proper legislation, without actually doing anything about it. If, and only if, another embarassment arises does the Government take the final step of proclaiming the law. When the finished product is far from the stated intention the deception is even worse.

I refer to one Bill that passed both Houses in June- the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill. It passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate during June of this year. It has not yet been proclaimed. That position is much better than the position in regard to the Human Rights Commission Bill. The Commission has not yet hit the light of day. That is only the first step of course. What can happen after that is that the destiny of the Commission, which is set up by a very fine Bill, is enshrined in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill. It was a credit to the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) that the Bill allowed some area of appeal, particularly on issues in which I have been involved during the last 12 months in regard to the antiquated migration Act. At last some relief, some joy, has been given to a person who had been treated badly, and who now has recourse to the courts of this country to argue the merits of his case. He is no longer at the mercy of an individual- the Minister- who has great power over a deportee in such circumstances.

I point out that this Bill is a famous piece of window-dressing and is an example of grandstanding. On the fundamental position in regard to an area of appeal in relation to human rights the Government grandstands, gets the legislation through, makes a great song and dance about it, passes one Bill through both Houses, then proceeds not to proclaim it. It has not been proclaimed to this day. What has happened to the Human Rights Commission Bill? The whole thing was a farce. As one proceeds to read the clauses of it one finds that they give the next way out. Instead of the Government putting its position on the line by introducing legislation that had been promised and that had been drafted, it is going to the people without that legislation being proclaimed.

I turn to the second point that I want to raise, and that is the quality of the judiciary. I want to deal with both ends of the spectrum. The first one deals with people who are charged and left rotting in gaols for lengthy periods because we do not have sufficient judges to hear their cases. Recently the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced the appointment of Mr Justice Fox as an ambassador at large. There is a lack of judges in the Australian Capital Territory. This prompted Senator Ryan to ask this question of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack):

I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the hardship and injustice arising from long delays currently experienced by liugants in the Australian Capital Territory Su- g rente Court. Does he know, for example, that as of 17 ictober 1977, 75 civil cases were ready for hearing but had not been given a hearing date in that Court? Does he know that persons have spent up to four months in custody before being brought to trial? what steps has he taken, or will he take, to amend the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act . . .

Senator Durack replied:

I do not dispute the statistics quoted by the honourable senator . . . there is certainly delay.

He went on to say that the problem had been brought about by a combination of factors, one in particular being that the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Fox, had been acting for a considerable period in the Ranger inquiry. It was stated by the Prime Minister, who issued the Press release about Mr Justice Fox, that two new judges would be appointed in the Australian Capital Territory. The Attorney-General said that one of the existing judges, Mr Justice Joske, would postpone his retirement for three months and that it would take time to find a replacement for Mr Justice Fox. The Bill appointing Mr Justice Fox as ambassador makes provision for preserving his status, whether he resigns or not. If he does not resign there will be no room for an extra judge without amendment of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act. Unless another judge is appointed the people referred to in Senator Ryan’s question will be in precisely the same situation as they are now.

Recently the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act was changed. Instead of requiring that a person appointed as judge should have practised law for at least five years, it now requires only that he should have had his name on the roll for five years. What does that mean? Does that mean that if there are people in the Attorney-General’s Department whom the Government wants to move sideways for some reason or other can be made a judge of the Family Court? Are there any grounds for believing that they are adequately equipped to become judges or can suddenly emerge as people capable of carrying out a judicial role in society if they are moved out of their present area? Surely the analogy is a surgeon who claims to be an expert after he has passed his course. Any appointment to the bench has to be a practical man. He has to be someone who has practised in the area in which he is to operate. It is a tragedy to think that people who put themselves at the mercy of the courts could appear before someone not suitably qualified. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) is not paying any attention to me. He is more interested in discussing with an honourable member who will not be here after the election something that is probably irrelevant to what we are talking about now.

The Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court enjoys a high reputation. That reputation is diminishing because of the intolerable delays that have occurred, as I have indicated. The Attorney-General’s answer to Senator Ryan indicates one more broken promise by the Prime Minister. It is not good enough to suggest that the situation will be corrected by one of the existing judges postponing his retirement. That will simply prevent the situation from becoming even worse. I think it will become worse. I hope that the Attorney-General acts swiftly to make a new appointment and to preserve the level of esteem in which the Court is held in the Australian Capital Territory. I hope that the new appointee will be appointed also to the Federal Court, as are all other judges of the territorial courts. That means that the selection should be a person who could take his place on the Supreme Court of any State in Australia with pride and be accepted by the legal profession and the people who will be at his mercy. I would not want to see the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court downgraded by the introduction of a judge of a lesser status than all the other territorial Supreme Court judges.

Whilst I recognise the difficulties that face the Attorney-General in finding someone of the necessary calibre, that difficulty does not seem to present any reason why the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act should not be amended to provide for two judges as promised by the Prime Minister. There should not be a long delay in appointing top-line practising lawyers to nil these important posts. It is simply not good enough when persons can be in custody for over four months before they are brought to trial. It is disgusting and degrading. It is another reason why the people will reject these individuals who have broken promises galore. This is another classic example.

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

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-The matters which I wish to raise concerning the Family Law Act are of the utmost national importance. Whilst the criticisms I intend to make of the working of the Act are very damning and worrying and ought to be of the gravest public concern, they are m no way a reflection upon the present Government or upon the administration of the Family Law Act by the present Attorney-General (Senator Durack) or his predecessor. It has to be acknowledged that some fundamental mistakes were made when this Parliament passed the Family Law Act in its present form. There is no doubt in my mind that while the Family Law Act remains in its present form with all the imperfections that can occur in the adrninistration of justice, some very tragic miscarriages of justice are likely to occur simply because of the way in which the Act was ultimately passed and because of the lack of consideration of some of the points that were made in the debate on the legislation when it was before Parliament.

The point I wish to make relates to the separation of the question of divorce from the other questions that have to be decided when a marriage is dissolved. Under the Act as it is framed a court can grant a decree very quickly to dissolve a marriage, but as has now become clear courts become bogged down often without very good reason and it can be a considerable time before a court is able to dispose of matters relating to property, maintenance and custody of children. I do not believe many honourable members were aware of the consequences that could flow from the separation of these two questions. The consequences that worry me are considerable. They have become much clearer with the considerable delay that is being occasioned in New South Wales in particular as a result of the large number of cases that have to be dealt with and the propensity of litigants in family law matters still to want to have the questions of custody, maintenance and distribution of property dealt with.

The problem that has not been considered is the problem that can arise when a wife seeks a divorce and the husband, who has all of the property in his name, dies after the granting of a decree but before the distribution of property has been dealt with. The action of the wife to gain access to some of the property from his estate for her and the maintenance of the children would abate and the cause of action that the wife might have had otherwise would be lost. What is not readily realised is that under State law the wife has a method of obtaining redress. In New South Wales she has that right under the Testators Family Maintenance Act. That redress resides only with the children of the marriage or the wife. It does not reside with the divorcee. The divorce may have been dealt with promptly, but because of delays in dealing with ancillary matters tragic circumstances could occur. The matrimonial nome, for instance, could be lost to a wife and her children because there would be no way by which a court could give redress.

I recommend very strongly to all legal practitioners and to all litigants who are at present exercising their rights under the Family Law Act that parties be not prepared to accept a decree of dissolution of their marriage until a court is also able to hear the ancillary questions of maintenance, custody and the distribution of property. Unless the wife makes the decision, she could very easily find herself in a most difficult situation. Of course this problem would be overcome if a large number of judges were appointed and if expensive courts were established, whether or not we were able to use them in the long term, and we simply speeded up the process. But as a practical matter, I do not believe the problem can be overcome in that way.

Of course the problem has been exacerbated by our writing out of the family law system in Australia the courts of petty sessions which have so expeditiously dealt with so many matters that are now ranting before the family law courts.

That matter might be helped if we were able to amend the Family Law Act to give courts of petty sessions jurisdiction to handle these matters. Whilst the Attorney-General has today made additional appointments to the family law courts in Australia I do not believe this will overcome the problem I am speaking of. That problem is particularly marked in rural communities where courts are not frequently held and to which judges have not been going on circuit a sufficient number of times to enable delays to be dealt with. I am told that in some rural communitie the delays could be up to two years. When we appreciate that there could be a delay of up to two years between the granting of a decree for dissolution of a marriage and the dealing with ancillary matters, we see how much the odds are in favour of a number of cases arising where divorcees will lose rights they would otherwise have had to the matrimonial home and property to enable them to maintain themselves and the children of the marriage.

I believe this question has to be looked at as a matter of urgency. I believe it has to be looked at in the context of the Family Law Act. Until it is dealt with, my recommendation that a wife who is seeking a divorce should not seek a final decree of dissolution of her marriage until the ancillary matters are dealt with, is, I believe, good advice in all the circumstances.

Having regard to those comments, which are certainly critical of the Act but I do not believe critical of the present Government, I think I ought to acknowledge the very progressive approach that has been taken by this Government to law reform. In this debate I emphasise the constructive approach- the co-operative approach- of the Government in relation to legal aid. It has involved State governments in its effort to develop a total and integrated scheme which will not have first and second class legal aid of the sort we had available in the past. I commend the Attorney-General who introduced the human rights Commission Bill which is presently before the House for consideration and the freedom of information legislation which will shortly be before the House. That legislation is a consequence of lengthy studies undertaken by interdepartmental committees to arrive at a final document. There are also the reforms in relation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Ombudsman. A new federal court structure has been established. The Criminal Investigation Bill is presently before the Parliament and available for comment. Then there is the important evidence amendment Act which is also a law reform of considerable consequence. There are also important references to the Law Reform Commission, particularly those on customary law, human transplants and defamation law. This shows the very law reforming zeal of our two Attorneys-General during this Government’s term in office. I believe congratulations are due to both of the gentlemen who have held that position during the two years we have had as a government.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Staley)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Deputy Speaker, while not opposing this third reading -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2517

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1977-78

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 August, on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 65

NOES: 29

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith?

Mr Wentworth:

– No. I want it to go to the Committee.

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole?

Mr Wentworth:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: That the Committee will first consider the Schedule to the Bill. Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Schedule as a whole?

Mr Wentworth:

– No.

Mr Baillieu:

– What do you want to do?

Mr Wentworth:

– I want to speak for 10 minutes on the third reading. If I can do so, you can have the Bill. I will get a fairer go in the Senate than you are giving me here.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! The Committee will come to order while we try to find some logical and sensible answer to the problems confronting us at the moment.

Mr Charles Jones:

- Mr Chairman, there is a full moon tonight, and I suggest that the Leader of the House take that into consideration.

The CHAIRMAN:

-If there is a full moon tonight a lot of people here will be watching it if we keep on this tack. The situation at present is, with one honourable member refusing permission for the Committee to consider the Bill as a whole, we will consider the Schedule department by department.

Parliament

Proposed expenditure, $9,000.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I do not want to detain the Committee for long on this small matter but we have before us the capital works for the Joint House Department. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to inform me what are these capital works.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the question be now put

Mr Wentworth:

– No. The Noes have it.

Mr Staley:

– Only one voice called ‘ No’.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will put the question again. The question is:

That the proposed expenditure for the Parliament be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $32,564,000.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I think all members would be sympathetic -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-No. Is there only one voice?

The CHAIRMAN:

– There must be more than one voice for a division to be called. The honourable member may have his dissent recorded but there must be more than one voice for a division to be called.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Administrative Services

Proposed expenditure, $40,742,000

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise to take a point of order. The next division is Payments to or for the States, not the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The third item on the Schedule is the Department of Administrative Services which I put to the Committee.

Mr Wentworth:

– No, I am sorry. You called on the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The next Division is 813- Payments to or for the States.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat. The proposed expenditure for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been passed by the Committee. The question now before the Committee is the proposed expenditure for the Department of Administrative Services.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am sorry. The next item on the Schedule is not the Department of Administrative Services. The next item is Division 813 - Payments to or for the States. Standing Orders require these items to be put in order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I advise the honourable member for Mackellar that, at the present time, we are considering Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1977-78. Under Schedule 2 the Committee has completed the Parliament and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The next item I see, even without my glasses, is the Department of Administrative Services, which I have called.

Mr Wentworth:

-I suggest that you put your glasses on because the next Division is Payments to or for the States.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I move:

That progress be reported.

I do so in order that this matter can be resolved. If this situation continues, the Parliament will be a farce.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 2519

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1977-78

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

-As it now seems to be the will of the House again to resolve itself into committee, that course will be followed.

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

The Schedule.

Mr Wentworth:

– If I could have 10 minutes during the third reading debate -

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat. The question is:

That the Schedule be agreed to.

Mr Wentworth:
Mr Bourchier:

– The honourable member for Mackellar may speak at the third reading stage.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It has been intimated that the honourable member for Mackellar will have the opportunity to speak for a brief period on the third reading debate.

Mr Wentworth:

– That is fine.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that we might proceed now with the business of the Committee.

Mr Sinclair:

– I suggest that we put one question on the remainder of the Schedule.

Remainder of Schedule agreed to.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion ( by Mr Staley )- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrDrummond)Order! Does the honourable member have a point of order.

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is ho substance in the point of order. I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-This Bill refers to capital works in the Budget. The capital works program in the Budget is said in this Bill to amount to only $ 1,329m, but actually the capital works program in the Budget is an amount much greater than that. I refer the House to an answer to a question on 18 October by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). At page 2127 of Hansard the Treasurer said that the capital works program in this Budget amounted to $3,598m. Since the so-called deficit is only $2,2 17m, this means, in effect, that there is a surplus in the Budget, not a deficit. There is a surplus of $ 1 ,38 1 m. It is perfectly true that there still remains the necessity to finance a little over $3,500m worth of capital works. Because one has changed the accounting, one does not in any way change the necessity to find that finance. I am not arguing that for the moment. What I am arguing is that there is in this Budget not a deficit but a real surplus. That surplus should have made it possible, indeed should have made it desirable, for the Government to approach the financial problems in quite a different fashion. It seems to me that there would be no difficulty in raising this money without any increase in interest rates. The Treasurer has already raised over $2,000m of it overseas without any augmentation of Australian interest rates at all. He has already raised overseas almost the whole of what he describes as his deficit. He has said -

Mr Yates:

– I raise a point of order. For clarification, is an honourable member allowed to extend a debate to matters which are outside the terms of a third reading motion?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Mr Drummond) - On the point of order, there has been an arrangement that the honourable member for Mackellar may speak for 10 minutes.

Mr Bourchier:

-Yes, but he has to speak to the Bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am speaking precisely to the Bill.

Mr Yates:

– I raise a further point of order. I do not in any way want to prevent the honourable member for Mackellar saying what he would like to say but I thought that the Standing Orders would not allow him to go outside the terms of the third reading motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Estimates debate is a very wide ranging debate.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not outside the terms of the third reading motion at all. I am saying this: We are talking about the ways in which finance for capital works should be raised and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) does in point of fact deal with the raising of money for financing capital works. This is what it is all about. I am pointing out to the House that already the Treasurer has borrowed overseas enough virtually to cover the whole of what he calls his deficit but not enough as yet to cover the whole of the capital works proposed expenditure set out in the schedule which the Treasurer has told me in his answer on 18 October is $3,598m. The Treasurer also has said that he will find no difficulty in raising, if he wants to, further sums overseas. Let us look at our capital works in this form. I am wondering whether it would not be better to extend a little the schedule of our capital works in order to cut down the unemployment and particularly youth unemployment which is having such a corrosive effect in our community. I do not advocate any extravagant expansion. I do advocate a little prudent growth in this matter and I believe that this Appropriation Bill (No. 2) which deals with this matter does not to a proper extent take account of the economic circumstances of the country.

I believe these things so strongly that I have been motivated after some 28 years as a member of Parliament to leave the Liberal Party. Although I think that Party is in so many ways the better party it is necessary for its economic policy to be changed. I am hoping that when I am elected to the Senate it will be a signal to the Government that the country does want a change of economic policy even though it does not want a change of government. I also am hoping that when I get into the Senate I will be able to see and monitor that this change goes through because it is necessary for the health of the Australian people and indeed for the continuance and maintenance of the anti-socialist and anticommunist cause that there should be a change of policy of this character.

Let me just go to a much more fundamental point economically, if I may. What is happening m this country and in the developed countries overseas is that the personal savings which people make are going rancid because they are unused. It is therefore highly imprudent to tax people in order to finance capital works. This is the height of financial imprudence because virtually it guarantees the continuance of unemployment. What we should be doing is reducing taxes. We should be using some of our real surplus to reduce taxes and we should be financing at least the whole of our capital works by loan funds. People are making savings and because they are making them they withdraw consumer f ower. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister Mr Malcolm Fraser) very rightly are asking consumers to spend more but by taxing them to pay for capital works and reducing savings they are virtually guaranteeing over the long term, whatever may be the short term result, the failure of their own financial policy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2521

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide the legislative framework within which the Government will implement its decision to provide assistance to the States for water resources projects under its national water resources program was outlined in my statement in the House on 17 August. Projects or activities for which the Commonwealth will be enabled to provide assistance have been defined as broadly as possible in clause 3 of the Bill. They encompass all aspects of water resources management for which Commonwealth assistance would be appropriateconservation works, water quality management, desalinisation of agricultural land, flood mitigation and flood plain management, and studies or investigations relating to all aspects of the assessment and utilisation of water resources and flood management.

The Bill provides for the Minister to make agreements with the States on the terms and conditions of financial assistance for water projects and for copies of these agreements to be tabled in the House within 15 days after the agreement has been made. It also provides for future appropriations of funds by Parliament to meet the Commonwealth’s commitments under these agreements. Clause 7 of the Bill provides an appropriation out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $lm. This will be used to provide assistance to New South Wales to meet the Commonwealth’s commitment for urgent flood mitigation works on the coastal rivers during 1977-78. I should point out that since 1964-65 the Commonwealth has provided $ 17m in grant funds to New South Wales to implement the coastal rivers flood mitigation program on a 2:2: 1 funding basis- Commonwealth, State and local government authorities respectively. The Commonwealth has always accepted a contingent commitment in respect of flood disasters, and this particular program has without any doubt considerably reduced the destructive effects of these recurring natural hazards. It also has contributed significantly to the security of life in flood prone areas.

This Bill marks a significant departure in respect of enabling legislation for Commonwealth assistance to the States for water projects. It is our view that a continuing legislative vehicle of this nature is more appropriate to the requirements of a long-term program than single purpose Acts as has been past practice. The proposed Act will reduce the legislative load in the House without in any way restricting the flow of information or opportunities for debate regarding Commonwealth commitments to the States for the assessment, planning, development and management of the nation’s water resources. I was very heartened to hear in the course of a recent debate in the House of widespread concern regarding the Commonwealth’s role in the development of our water resources. I would sum up the essence of the debate as being bipartisan support for a more active Commonwealth role. The Bill before the House is the first requirement towards this objective and the continuing nature of the proposed Act lends itself eminently to sustained initiatives by the Commonwealth to ensure the most effective utilisation of Australia’s water resources. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2521

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1977

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is twofold. In the first place, an amendment is proposed to section 25 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to repeal sub-section (4). The second purpose is to put beyond question the validity of the existing redistribution procedures insofar as they affect the current redistribution of the State of Western Australia. Honourable members may recall that section 25 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act provides for a redistribution when the Chief Australian Electoral Officer’s determination has resulted in an alteration in the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen for a State. It also authorises a redistribution whenever in one-fourth of the divisions of a State the number of electors differs from the quota by one-tenth more or by one-tenth less; and at such other times as the Governor-General thinks fit.

Sub-section (4) provides that after a redistribution has been put into effect in a State a period of seven years must elapse before a further redistribution can be made by virtue of the one-fourth and one-tenth circumstance to which I have just referred. The current redistribution in relation to Western Australia has proceeded on the basis that section 25 (4) would not prevent a redistribution within the sevenyear period if there were other reasons for doing so such as that redistributions were in hand in all other States. A legal challenge has now been made to the validity of the current redistribution of Western Australia. Broadly, it appears to be claimed that in the factual situation as it applied in Western Australia, where one-fourth of the divisions differed from the quota by one-tenth or more, it was not possible for the GovernorGeneral to direct a redistribution in 1977 because, as there had been a redistribution in Western Australia in 1974, the seven-year barrier must apply.

It was made perfectly clear during the debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill in February this year that the intention was that the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Executive Government, would reserve the option of proclaiming a redistribution at any time he thought fit despite the seven-year provision. Nevertheless it does appear that there may be some doubt as to whether the legislation as currently drafted reflects this intention. Our advice is that the most appropriate way to overcome any problem which may exist is to repeal the seven-year provision contained in subsection (4). This would place the issue beyond doubt for the future. At the same time action also needs to be taken to ensure the validity of the current redistribution process in Western Australia in respect of which the report of the Distribution Commissioners has already been tabled. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2522

PUBLIC SERVICE (PERMANENT HEAD-DUAL APPOINTMENT) BILL 1977

Bill 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Last July, the Government took a major initiative in the international trade sphere with the appointment of a Minister for Special Trade Negotiations to be responsible for high level trade negotiations with the European Economic Community. The new arrangements envisaged that the Minister would lead a small negotiating team, consisting primarily of officers seconded from other departments. However, the requirements of section 64 of the Constitution and of the Public Service Act are such that it was necessary to formally create a Department of the Special Trade Negotiator and a position of Secretary to that Department. In recognition of the special relationship between the new Department and the Department of Overseas Trade, the Secretary of the latter Department, Mr D. H. McKay, O.B.E., has been also acting as Secretary to the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator.

After the selection procedures in section- 54A of the Public Service Act had been followed, it was determined that Mr McKay- who is an ‘established candidate’ in relation to the vacancy, within the meaning of section 54 of the Public Service Act-should be permanently appointed to the new office in addition to continuing to hold office as Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. It is considered desirable that there should be express legislative backing for this course of action, m order that the legal position is beyond doubt.

The Bill provides that the person for the time being holding the office of Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade may also hold or act in the office of Secretary to the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator, and for a person acting in the office of Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to also act in the office of the Secretary to the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator. Provision is also made that, while a person is holding or acting in both offices, no remuneration will be payable m respect of the second office, and that if a person who holds both offices ceases to hold the first office, that person also ceases to hold the second office. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2523

TRANSPORT PLANNING AND RESEARCH (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill now before the House continues and extends arrangements for the provision of assistance to the States for land transport planning and research. Honourable members will be aware that the Government has included a sum of $8m in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) for transport planning and research assistance in 1977-78. The Bill now before the House provides standing legislation specifying the conditions and arrangements covering the use of these funds and funds to be appropriated in subsequent years.

At the Australian Transport Advisory Council the future arrangements concerning the planning and research program have been discussed with my State colleagues. There has been unanimous support for the continuation of the program and the structure of the arrangements proposed has been influenced by the views of the States. Some general introductory comments are appropriate. The Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969 provided assistance for road research. The transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974 extended assistance to urban public transport as well as roads. The present Bill further extends assistance to cover planning and research into all forms of land transport as well as into areas involved in the relationship of land transport and other modes.

The transport planning and research program has achieved its objectives through effective Commonwealth-State co-operation. It has promoted an integrated approach to planning and research, to the sharing of results and to avoidance of duplication. Commonwealth assistance to more than 500 projects has totalled over $23m since 1974. Examples include large studies such as the south west area study in Western Australia, the north east area transport study in South Australia, the Koonung Creek corridor study in Victoria and the Newcastle, GosfordWyong and Wollongong urban studies. There are also many smaller projects such as area control of traffic in Hobart and crew rostering by computer in Queensland which are directed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of existing facilities and infrastructure. With regard to the Bill itself, I should say that several changes from previous legislation have been introduced to simplify administrative arrangements while preserving the essential features of a CommonwealthState co-operative program which has developed successfully to this time. A change from former arrangements is that State programs will now be approved rather than individual projects. This is to allow States greater flexibility in implementing and managing their planning and research programs and at the same time further encourage the development of balanced programs.

I turn now to financial aspects. In 1977-78 the Government has proposed an appropriation of $8m for transport planning and research and the Schedule to the Bill indicates the assistance to be given for each State. The 1977-78 grants will be provided on a matching basis of two Commonwealth dollars to one State dollar in line with previous legislation. However, after 1977-78 the Government proposes to contribute to the program on a dollar for dollar basis. We recognise that continuity of funding is very important in a rogram like this and we have already told the tates that for 1978-79 and 1979-80 we are prepared to contribute our share on a dollar for dollar basis of a total program maintained at the 1977-78 level in real terms.

The explanatory notes I have circulated describe the main features of the Bill and I do not propose to deal with individual clauses in detail. The important points covered by the Bill include definitions, arrangements for approval, details of grant entitlement in 1977-78 and in later years, provision to cover planning and research projects carried out for the States by research organisations and details of financial administration and provisions for delegation. Honourable members will recall that on 24 August 1976 and 3 May 1977 1 tabled reports of progress on projects under the Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974. The Bill now before the House provides for continued communication of results through annual progress reports and final project reports. The transport planning and research program to date has provided a good example of Commonwealth-State co-operation. This Bill will enable this co-operation to continue and ensure effective use of resources. It will encourage planning and research relating to land transport, will allow for emphasis on new initiaties and for the avoidance of unnecessary duplication. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2524

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to seek authority for the Treasurer to guarantee on behalf of the Australian Government, loans raised by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd to finance the purchase of one Boeing 727-200 series aircraft. This will be the eighth aircraft of its type in the Ansett fleet. The company also operates four Boeing 727-100s and twelve DC9s. The Australian National Airlines Commission, Trans-Australia Airlines, which operates the same number of aircraft of each type as Ansett, has informed me that it intends to finance its eighth Boeing 727-200 from its own internal resources. The need by both Ansett and the Commission to seek additional aircraft to incorporate into their fleets, is to meet the strong growth in traffic that has been evident throughout most of this year. The industry is optimistic that these trends will continue through 1978.

During 1976 both carriers experienced relatively depressed market conditions with a situation of no growth in some areas and only marginal gains in traffic being made in other areas. By comparison to 1975, when very high rates of growth were achieved, 1976 was indeed a most difficult time for both airlines. However, statistics indicate that for the first three quarters of 1977, the number of passengers carried was 4 per cent higher than for the comparable period in 1976. Average load factors, or the number of seats occupied compared to those available, have also improved. Aircraft utilisation, or the number of hours flown by each aircraft in the fleet, has also increased. Ansett and TAA have achieved levels of utilisation which are amongst the highest in the world. This facet must be considered as one of the more beneficial features of Australia’s two-airline policy. The achievement of such levels of utilisation ensures that the aircraft are flown to their fullest capacity, of course within the strict margins dictated by safety. This in turn assists to keep fares down by avoiding the cost of surplus capacity within the fleet.

Earlier this year both airlines introduced two new routes on to their network. For the first time there is now a weekly direct jet service between Canberra and Adelaide. Similarly, there is a weekly service offered between Sydney and Alice

Springs. On this route, the service is provided by each of the airlines on alternate weeks. These developments, I believe, reflect the airlines initiative and their willingness to explore new markets and break new ground. Apart from these factors which are contributing to a tightening of available capacity within the fleets, there is another matter which also should be mentioned. For some years now both operators have been going through a process of upgrading their fleets. As I mentioned earlier, in addition to the Boeing 727-200s and the DC9s that each airline operate they also have four Boeing 727- 100s. This particular aircraft was first introduced onto the domestic network in 1964 and in fact was the first jet aircraft type to operate regular services in Australia.

During 1976, both airlines sold two of the Boeing 727- 100s overseas and I understand that they intend to continue the retirement program over the next few years for the remaining umts of this aircraft type in their fleet. The decision to retire these aircraft is based not only on age, but also on the fact that this aircraft is somewhat smaller and relatively noisier than the Boeing 727-200s. On the general question of fleet expansion, the domestic operators have been watching with interest the experience of overseas operators with the new generation of a wide-bodied aircraft. Of course, it would be some years yet before their introduction could be expected on the domestic network. Network expansion and fleet re-equipment are matters most pertinent to Australia’s two-airline policy. Indeed, I think it can be said that most forms of air transport in this country are to some extent influenced by this policy.

Whilst the policy has both its supporters and protagonists, I do not believe it can be denied that it has nurtured Australian aviation through its relative infancy of the early 1950s, to its present position. In fact, it has enabled Australia to develop a first class internal aviation transport system which has been the envy of many nations. Nevertheless, even though the two-airline system has served Australia well, we should from time to time review and test that policy to ensure it still meets the community’s needs to the fullest. Accordingly, I announced m July of this year that a review of domestic air transport policy is being conducted and being directed by a steering committee of senior officers from my Department. The terms of reference are expansive and will include such topics as: The role of the Commonwealth and the States in the licensing of air services; the possibility of improving the Commonwealth air service licensing arrangements; the possibility of up-dating the two-airline policy arrangements; seeking to clarify the role of the smaller airlines and commuters; and the dual scheduling arrangements engaged in by the two major operators on trunk routes.

All interested parties from both private and government sectors together with the aviation industry and major users have been invited to forward submissions to the study group. These views, where appropriate, will of course be taken into consideration in preparing future policy. Similarly in the field of international aviation I have also directed my Department to undertake a major review of air pohcy. Like the domestic review it will be a comprehensive study of all factors affecting international air travel.

At the present time, there is considerable interest in the possibility of lower international air fares to and from Australia. While such fares would benefit certain sectors of the public and the tourist industry, the effect on the level and frequency of schedule services must also be taken into account. It is essential that the Government’s regulatory policies do not prevent such benefits being available to Australia. At the same time, however, the Government must ensure that our air links with other countries are not placed in jeopardy by those who may only wish to ‘cream the trade ‘.

Further, this study of the international situation will assist the Government in making a proper contribution to the work of the International Civil Aviation Organisation which will be preparing studies over the next three years to help the world aeronautical community to find solutions to the problems affecting the industry. I am sure that the outcome of both of these studies will offer sound and positive guidelines for the continued development of both Australia’s domestic and international air transport system.

While on the general issue of developing future guidelines for air transport, it seems appropriate that I mention the present study m progress on the planning of future aviation facilities in the Sydney area, namely the MANS Study. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is not only the centre of Australia’s domestic air transport network, but it is also the major international airport in Australia. In the last seven years the number of persons moving through Sydney Airport has increased by 16 per cent, from 4,214,322 to the year ended June 1970, to an estimated 4,869,000 for the year to June 1977. It is expected in future years that the number of passengers handled at Sydney Airport will continue to increase at a substantial rate.

In a joint statement, in October 1976, the Prime Minister and the New South Wales Premier announced the establishment of a committee of senior Commonwealth and State officials to recommend a suitable strategy to cater for the future aviation demand in the Sydney area. My Department, and I understand other departments, including those within the New South Wales Government, are making a considerable manpower commitment to the study to ensure that the optimal solution in every sense, is achieved. In the long term the outcome of studies such as this, involves the sinking of capital into aviation facilities and infrastructure. Of course this raises the thorny issue of who should pay. One would be foolish to deny the contribution that aviation makes to our economy; yet this can also be said of other forms of transport. We would all like to see air fares kept as low as possible; however it must be borne in mind that this can only be achieved at considerable cost to the taxpayer.

As I have said in the past, it is the Government’s objective to ensure that Australia’s overall transport system is the most efficient possible. The general issue of cost recovery in the aviation field is certainly not new. In fact, in the Airlines Agreement Act of 1961 it was stated that the Commonwealth would implement a policy of full recovery of the cost of facilities properly attributable to civil air transport. Of course, the policy received notoriety under the previous Government when it announced its intention to increase the level of recovery for the costs of civil aviation to 80 per cent across the board by 1978-79. 1 believe the Government has taken a responsible decision by deferring the very harsh line of the previous Government until the industry has been properly consulted on the levels of costs, revenues and services. These discussions are continuing and proving to be a most fruitful exercise.

Deferral has also been made to facilitate proper studies and comparisons of cost recovery programs of other transport modes to be made. These studies are being carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics and are now well advanced. Estimates by my Department for the year ended June 1977 show a total outlay of $2 12m on civil aviation in this country including both capital works and overheads. Revenue estimates for the same period show a return of approximately $124m. Of this $124m, half is contributed by air navigation charges, 20 per cent by aviation fuel tax, the balance being made up by airport rentals and concessions. This gives an overall recovery position of 59 per cent. When it is considered that, for the year ended June 1969, the percentage of revenues covering costs was only 44 per cent, this is a considerable achievement.

Considering the same estimates to the year ended June 1977, a clearer picture emerges when the overall recovery position is looked at on a sector basis. For international operations full recovery of costs is being achieved. For domestic trunk operations, namely those routes over which Ansett and TAA operate, the recovery position is approximately 76 per cent. For the remaining sectors, rural airlines and general aviation, the recovery situation is somewhat less. Although this situation is recognised, the ability of the industry to pay has to be considered. There are also the needs of persons in remote areas of Australia who rely almost entirely upon air transport to meet their everyday needs.

I would now like to mention a number of announcements the Government has recently made on this general theme, in respect of subsidies for air services in remote areas of Australia. Honourable members will know that it has been the Government’s position that the people in outlying areas of Australia should enjoy the best possible air services while at the same time keeping the cost to the taxpayer, of subsidies, to a reasonable level.

To this end, the Government last year established an inter-departmental committee to assess the demand for air services in the area served by the Northern Territory airline, Connair Pty Ltd, and to recommend to me how that demand might best be satisfied. The Committee comprised representatives of the Department’s of the Northern Territory, Aboriginal Affairs, Finance and my own Department of Transport. The Committee placed considerable importance on conducting its inquiries on the spot and sought to obtain the widest possible range of comment and opinion from all sections of the community.

The decisions recently taken by the Government were not solely based on the recommendations of the Committee. I myself had a number of ?uite frank discussions with the Chairman of lonnair, Mr E. J. Connellan. The proposals which are now to be implemented were to some extent developed during the course of these discussions. These recent decisions by the Government provide for the continued operation of Connair Pty Ltd as a viable enterprise. The airline will continue to meet the air transport needs of the people in the area who depend so much upon it.

The Committee also made a number of recommendations in respect of certain new initiatives, which the Government has implemented or will implement shortly. These too will assist in catering for the air transport needs of the people in the area, in the most efficient manner possible. In considering the general question of subsidies to operators serving remote areas, the Government did have the benefit of similar studies concerning northern Western Australia and northern Queensland. These studies were undertaken by the State Government authorities in conjunction with my own Department.

Honourable members will appreciate from this brief resume of the aviation industry that the responsible attitude taken by the present Government has been an influencing factor upon the re-establishment of a stable climate within which confidence is being restored, and which is enabling industry growth. The reviews which are at present underway will enable the Government to continue to be well advised and to respond to the needs of the people of Australia in the rational development of air services which are so vital to our general well being. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2526

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Stirling · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill will provide legislative authority for two double taxation agreements entered into with other countries. One is with Greece and applies only to profits derived from international air transport. The other is with Belgium and deals with all substantial forms of income flowing between Australia and Belgium. Neither of the agreements can enter into force until all necessary legislative processes have been completed by both Australia and the other country.

The limited agreement with Greece is of a now familiar kind and provides that each country is to exempt from its tax profits derived from international air transport by the other country’s international airline. In effect, each country will have the sole right to tax profits from international traffic derived by its international airline in the other country.

The agreement with Belgium was signed by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) earlier in the month and is along the lines of Australia’s modern agreements, that is, those seven agreements negotiated or renegotiated since 1967. That being so, I think that I need not detain the House with an exposition of the purposes that are served by comprehensive double taxation agreements. Suffice it to say that the agreements provide in ordered ways for the two contracting countries to share in the revenue that is generated from income flowing between them. Under the agreement with Belgium, Australia is to reduce its withholding tax on dividends flowing to Belgian residents from 30 per cent to 15 per cent of the dividends. Conversely, Belgium is to reduce its rate of withholding tax on dividends- currently 20 per cent- to 1 5 per cent.

I mention that profits out of which dividends are distributed by Australian companies to foreign shareholders now bear a company tax rate of 46 per cent so that, with withholding tax at the rate of 1 5 per cent, that total Australian tax on each $ 100 of distributed profits is a not insubstantial $54.10. The agreement specifies a limit of 10 per cent on each country’s tax on interest and royalties flowing to the other. For Australia this will mean no reduction in our interest withholding tax of 10 per cent. For royalties flowing to Belgium, the Australian tax limit of 10 per cent of gross payments may operate to reduce the ordinary tax at general rates of net royalties. Belgium will reduce its withholding tax rate on interest and royalties from 20 per cent to 10 per cent.

The agreement contains measures for the formal relief by the country of residence of double taxation of income that would otherwise be taxed by both countries. These measures supplement the relief that is available under the ordinary domestic law of each country. Generally, income which is taxed in full in the country of source will be exempt from tax by the country of residence while, in the case of income that is taxed at reduced rates in the country of sourcedividends, interest and royalties- the country of residence will tax the income and allow credit for the tax of the country of source.

Apart from the provisions I have mentioned, the agreement with Belgium contains the usual provisions- common to double taxation agreements- relating to the taxation of business profits, visiting businessmen and employees, public entertainers, students and pensioners and so on. These and other aspects of the arrangements with Belgium are explained in an explanatory memorandum that is being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2527

TERRITORY AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Stirling · LP

– I move:

This Bill is to provide certain complementary legislative provisions to overcome technical problems encountered in the legislation for statutory authorities established by Territory ordinances. During the drafting of the Darwin Community College Ordinance 1973, it became apparent that provisions for the payment of budget appropriations, which are normally included in Acts constituting Commonwealth authorities, were beyond the power of a Territory ordinance. The Territory Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act 1973 was therefore enacted as complementary legislation to make

E revision to overcome this deficiency for the col:ge and for any other Territory authority established by ordinance in the future.

Since then it has become apparent that certain other provisions concerning loans and taxation normally included in Commonwealth authorities’ Acts are also beyond the powers of an ordinance. Accordingly, this Bill will re-enact the 1973 Act with additional provisions to allow the Treasurer to determine the terms and conditions of Commonwealth loans to prescribed Territory authorities, and to enable him to give Commonwealth guarantees on other borrowings by prescribed authorities.

Clause 8 of the Bill provides that certain noncommercial Territory authorities sepcified in Part 1 of the Schedule to the Act are exempt from Commonwealth and State taxation, unless regulations under the Act make a particular authority subject to a specified tax. Clause 9 provides that certain commercial Territory authorities specified in Part II of the Schedule are subject to taxation under the laws of the Commonwealth, but not subject to taxation under any law of a State unless the regulations make a particular authority liable to a specified state tax. The taxation provisions are in terms similar to those included in Acts constituting Commonwealth authorities passed by this Parliament. Because of the importance of taxation, provision has been made for the schedule of authorities to which the taxation provisions apply to be amended only by subsequent amendment of the Act.

Specific provision is also made in the Bill for the Canberra Commercial Development Authority to be liable for income tax and sales tax, in order to comply with the intention when the Authority was established in 1974 that it should be liable to all taxes and charges normally applicable to private commercial enterprises. The Authority is to be made subject to income tax retrospectively from the date of its establishment so that it may benefit by offsetting any trading losses incurred in its early years against future taxable income, in the same way as a private developer. Because of administrative difficulties that would be involved in attempting to impose sales tax on past transactions, the authority will be subject to sales tax from the date of commencement of this Act.

In view of the Government’s decision last July concerning the advance toward self-government for the Northern Territory, there will be full consultation with the Northern Territory Executive before any Northern Territory authority is prescribed under this Act. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2528

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

-I have received the following message from the Senate:

The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:

That the following matter be referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory-to undertake a continuing review of the extent to which recommendations made in the Committee’s report ‘Canberra Gty Wastes- A long-term strategy for collection and disposal’ presented to both Houses of Parliament on 8 December 1976 have been implemented and the current position regarding matters discussed in the report.

page 2528

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Debate resumed from 26 October, on motion byMrMacphee:

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of New South Wales into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs C. I. White, L. N. Fletcher and C. W. Prince, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before the House of Representatives on 25 October 1977, and that the names of the Divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted, except that the name ‘Macquarie’ be substituted for’Lawson’.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– Just as a matter of guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, I understood that there was to be a cognate debate on these electoral redistributions. Can I be given an undertaking that separate questions will be put?

MrViner-Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That procedure will be followed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The reason for seeking guidance is that the Opposition will be opposing the motions in respect of New South Wales and Western Australia.

Mr Viner:

– Western Australia, too?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Yes. The point is, without my trying to help my ministerial opponent, we will not oppose the other motions. Whilst we accept the proposed redistributions in respect of the other states, we believe that there are minor objections to them. I deal firstly with the proposed redistribution for Western Australia. What I want to say about that matter is this: I think it is a clear illustration of people being denied their rights to object to electoral redistributions, in the light of what happened today. The Government rushed into this House a Bill validating a proclamation relating to a subdivision in Western Australia because a citizen in Kalgoorlie wanted to exercise his rights. He did so by instituting proceedings in the High Court. The legislation rushed into this House this afternoon will deny him the right to pursue that matter. This shows the incompetence and bungling of this Government. The distribution in Western Australia is obviously illegal. It should never have been allowed. When a citizen of Kalgoorlie, who has the right to protest, commences an action in the High Court, the Government uses the whole process of the law to rush into the Parliament today a Bill saying the distribution before the House will be validated. It is an insult to the House. It has certainly denied the rights of a person in Kalgoorlie. Why was he not allowed to pursue the matter and perhaps show that the law was invalid and incompetent and did not give him his rights because he had another ground.

The number of people who will come within the Kalgoorlie electorate has been increased. The electorate has been enlarged. It is about the largest electorate in the world now, and it has been increased in size again. Aboriginal people in the Kalgoorlie electorate do not always enrol. That does not alter the fact that they exist there and that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has a responsibility towards them. No consideration has been given to that fact. If they were to enrol, as they may, before the writs are issued for the forthcoming election, the Kalgoorlie electorate would be out of all proportion to what would be deemed fair and reasonable. The Distribution Commissioners have analysed this situation in a manner to suit the political concepts of the present Government. The permissible maximum number of people in a Western Australian electorate is 67,387. Everybody knows that the population of the Kalgoorlie electorate entitled to vote together with the Aboriginals there would be in excess of that number.

A private citizen challenged the report of the Western Australian Distribution Commissioners because it was made in accordance with a proclamation which he says is invalid. He is to be denied his right to sustain that challenge. He is entitled to sustain the challenge. He argues that if the existing divisions are adhered to, the Kalgoorlie division would be smaller and that the position would not be as it will be as a result of the validating legislation introduced today. One wonders how in the name of fortune the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was able to convince His Excellency the Governor-General that he should grant a dissolution of Parliament when the proposed new electoral divisions of the nation have not been approved by the Parliament. One is the subject of a challenge in the High Court. What happens if it transpires that we do not approve the report in respect of the divisions applying to Western Australia? As it is perfectly entitled to do, this House could disap-

Erove of the report, but a dissolution of the Parament has been granted already because the Prime Minister asked for it. Are we to run a democracy in this nation on the basis that whatever the Prime Minister wants is granted whenever he wants it irrespective of the matters before the Parliament? Why are the rights of a citizen in Kalgoorlie being denied and interrupted by urgent legislation from an incompetent Government? It is for these reasons that the Opposition proposes to oppose the report of the Commissioners in respect of the Western Australian divisions.

Let me deal with another matter which is just as serious and important- the proposed redistribution in New South Wales. As a result of objections when the first maps were published, the divisions have been substantially altered to suit the political advantages of the Liberal Party. No other point of view could be expressed. I make this point very clearly indeed. The report on New South Wales deals with the suggestions and objections lodged following the publication of the first maps. Pages 220 and 22 1 set out a letter from Mr Carlton, the General Secretary of the Liberal Party, clearly stating out what he thinks should happen. Speaking about Lowe, he said: ‘We do not want the division that has been foreshadowed. It is not in accordance with what we think is reasonable’. He forgot to add: ‘It is not in accordance with what we think is politically advantageous’. He said: ‘We object to it and we want the Commissioners to do something about it’. The Commissioners have done something about it. We have the incredible situation that what has now been put forward as an appropriate division for Lowe is virtually the same as what was put forward by the Liberal Party when it first made its submissions. What transpired that convinced the Commissioners that they should agree all of a sudden with the Liberal Party’s submission that was made before the issue of the first maps? The Commissioners took three or four months to examine those submissions. They made a valid determination. The only thing standing against their determination was an objection from the Liberal Party in the seat of Lowe. We now get the result, without anybody else being consulted, that Lowe is virtually the same as what the Liberal Party first submitted. I very much doubt whether anyone can say that the Commissioners were not subject to influence as to what should be the decision in that area.

Let us look at some other factors. Objections were lodged by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon). Fine. He was entitled to object. Following the publication of the maps, he made the point that he would object. Press reports state that Mr Carlton described the propositions as foreshadowed unacceptable to the Liberal Party and outrageous. There was another interesting action by the Liberal Party. Before the objections had been considered and the decision of the Commissioners announced the Liberal Party called for nominations for preselection but did not call for nominations for the seat of Lowe. That was on 1 1 October. On 1 8 October, still before the distribution results were announced, the Liberal Party said that it was calling for nominations for the seat of Lowe. What transpired in the mind of the Liberal Party between 1 1 October and 18 October to convince it that it could then go ahead and call for nominations for the seat of Lowe? Did it know that the proposed distribution was to be the same as that they had asked for in the first place? It looks very much like it.

If one looks at other matters I have mentioned one can see again a partisanship towards the Liberal Party submissions. One sees it in the division of Macarthur, where the question of the Mulgoa sub-division was raised. Lo and behold, because an objection was raised that objection was sustained and the sub-division of Mulgoa is to go into the division of Lawson, which of course will suit the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard). This is the problem. Talk about the Commissioners making an impartial decision. Why is it that when the Liberal Party first submitted that Mulgoa should be in the division of Lawson the submission was not agreed to. It was only after the first maps were published, objections were invited and objections were received from the Liberal Party that the objection was acceded to. If we look at the preliminary position of map 5, that is the Liberal Party’s own proposals we find that after objections have been dealt with the Commissioners are in agreement with the Liberal Party’s original proposals. It smells to high heaven of political corruption. There is nothing worse.

Mr Viner:

– They were good sound objections.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Good sound objections indeed. The Liberal Party could not sustain its case when the maps were first issued. After they were issued the Liberal Party wrote a letter and it won. What sort of law is that?

I come to my own division of Kingsford-Smith and the sub-divisions of Kensington. Under section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the matters to be taken into consideration by the Distribution Commissioners include community of interest, including economics, social and regional interests. What happened in the case of Kingsford-Smith? Firstly, the Liberal Party submitted that the subdivision of Kensington should be incorporated in the division of Wentworth. That submission was not sustained. As a matter of interest, the subdivision of Kensington was put into the division of Phillip, another Liberal seat. The honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) objected saying: ‘I do not want the subdivision of Kensington. It should be given to somebody else’. He was partially successful. Half the subdivision has been taken out of the proposed electorate of Phillip and given to the electorate of Wentworth. I now represent these people. Can any Government supporter imagine saying: ‘Well, on one side of the street you are going to be in an electorate which is 5 miles away. There is no transport, there are no schools and there is no community of interest’?

Government supporters interjecting-

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-How silly is it?

Mr Fisher:

– The honourable member for Riverina has people in his electorate who are 500 miles away.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Maybe he has but we are talking about section 19 of the Act. One has to travel 5 miles away to find the other part of the electorate. How about that? There is a complete gap- a no-man’s land -of 5 miles.

Mr Viner:

– I hope Hansard records the laughter.

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

-Hansard might record the laughter but let them record the facts. If these people want to find their local member they have to cross that distance I have mentioned. But the people on the other side of the road are in a different electorate. The facts are that the people on the northern part of the subdivision vote Labor. That is the position. There was no submission that the subdivision should be split in half. I do not know too many cases where a subdivision has been split in half to suit the convenience of the Liberal Party. Here we find Kensington divided in half: The part that votes Labor is given to Wentworth, miles away, while the people on the southern side who vote Liberal form part of a continuous zone of the Phillip electorate. Does this not smell to high heaven? Yet Government supporters laugh. They laugh at corruption. The people in that area go to the same churches, the same shopping centres and use the same transport and their children go to the same schools, but those people have different Federal members. So where do we get this consideration of section 19- the consideration of economic, social and regional interest? It is a blatant hypocrisy for anyone to say that this is a fair proposition. It has been carried out to sustain the seat of Phillip for the Liberals but we will win despite the unfairness.

The local member, who happens to be myself, was not consulted at any stage. I agreed that the subdivision in toto should be removed, but to remove half of it on the basis that it is known which way the people will vote is a blatant discrimination against the people in that electorate. You would have to fire a 25-pounder gun from that area to try to find Mr Ellicott. He has never seen the area. Now he is going to be the local member. Yet Mr Birney is going to represent the other side of the road. It is just so ridiculous to think that the Government can say to the people in the Kensington subdivision, that from now on their affiliation is going to be with Vaucluse and Point Piper. That is where they have been put purely on the basis that they happen to vote

Labor. The electorate of Wentworth is so Liberal dominated it can absorb some of the saturation of Labor voters. Where is the continuity of interest? Where is the affiliation of socioeconomic zones. Where is the affiliation in the normal community of interest, from the point of view of schools, shopping centres and the like? What provision will be made for them to be adequately represented? They are in a different municipality, a different area, altogether.

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

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

– I really feel very sorry for the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) when he starts to make a plea that schools are going to be 5 miles away and that there will be some disability for constituents because of the enormous distances involved. Really I do shed a tear for him. It is a pity he would not shed a few tears for those people in country areas whose electorates have been made so very much bigger. The honourable member would not care one iota for them. It was the Australian Labor Party which decided to make electorates bigger by hundreds of thousands of square miles, to make them even more enormous. For example, the electorate of Riverina, which was a compact electorate and which had a community of interest, under the terms and conditions of the redistribution now takes in the borders of four States- Victoria, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. Goodness me, what an enormous electorate to have to represent! Yet we hear about people having to travel 5 miles to get to a shopping centre. I suppose they cannot even get a bus. Or is no helicopter service available? It is about time they started to realise how a few other people in Australia have to get on and how honourable members from country areas have to try to get around. They are lucky if they can get to all centres in one year. Yet honourable members from city areas are complaining about a distance of 5 miles.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Keep it up.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member for KingsfordSmith will cease interjecting.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Why does he not talk to the Bill?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr ANTHONY:

-The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith appears to be going off his rocker. Honourable members from city areas will have to represent 4 square miles instead of 3 square miles. They might even have to get on their bicycles instead of walking. Goodness me! When we hear all these complaints about manipulations and gerrymanders let us remember the redistribution that the Labor Government brought down in this House. In New South Wales the five seats with the largest numbers of voters happen to be enormous country electorates. The Labor Government lowered the numbers for the city electorates which are only pocket handkerchief size in any case. What could have been more of a gerrymander than that? Thank goodness the Senate was prepared to throw out the redistribution proposal and not accept it. While I cannot say that this redistribution fills me with much satisfaction it is a darn sight better than that brought down by the Labor Government.

The National Country Party will not try to prevent these proposals being adopted. However, we take that attitude only with the greatest reluctance and with serious misgivings. To say we support the proposals would be to put the matter in the wrong perspective. We believe that they are grossly unfair to country people. They are based on a principle which is wrong, one which does not even apply. I have no doubt that within the Parliament, particularly on this side, there is a degree of understanding of, sympathy with and support for the point of view put forward by the National Country Party- that there needs to be a degree of tolerance to try to compensate for all the disabilities of the large country electorates. We say that all Australians wherever they live, should have the opportunity of at least some equality of representation.

All parties, Labor, Liberal and our own Party, until recently supported provisions which would have allowed the electoral laws which have applied since Federation to be maintained. They provided for a tolerance of 20 per cent above and below the quota for electoral enrolments. Today it seems that only the National Country Party supports that provision. So far as we have been able we have endeavoured to have the 20 per cent provision restored. We believe that it should be restored. We will continue to try to have it restored. It is fair and reasonable and it has applied for a long time. The proposals which applied were based on rules which allowed a degree of equity. However, they have now been circumscribed so that the discretion of the Distribution Commissioners is exercised in a way which does not apply to any other democratic country in the world. I shall illustrate this point in a moment. I think that the claim we have heard so often, that Australia is now blessed with a system of one vote one value or close to it, should be exposed for its hypocrisy and nonsense.

Under the electoral laws as they now stand, and as they were drawn up by the Whitlam Government, Australia’s smallest electorate can contain 45,048 voters and the largest electorate can contain 8 1 ,457 voters- a difference of 36,400 voters. That was brought down under Labor’s rules. What hypocrisy, what humbug for these self-styled champions of democracy to claim that they have prevented the destruction of democracy in Australia, that they enshrined the socalled sacred principle of one vote one value in our laws. Labor’s rules, which have not been changed, allow for one electorate to contain 80 per cent more voters than another. What is the maximum tolerance in enrolments? Is it really 10 per cent? The average enrolment in Australia’s 124 electorates is 68,906 voters, yet we have an electorate with only 45,000 voters and another which can have as many as 8 1 ,000 voters. That is a departure from the average not of 10 per cent but of 35 per cent below the average in one case and of 1 8 per cent above it in the other.

These figures are based on the enrolments in the Northern Territory compared with the permissible enrolments in electorates in South Australia. Even if we regard the Northern Territory as a special case and base the comparison on electorates in Tasmania and South Australia we still find that, under Labor’s rules, there can be as few as 47,162 voters in a Tasmanian electorate and as many as 81,457 in a South Australian electorate. That is a difference of 34,000 voters.

Mr Young:

– That is not Labor’s rules. That is the Constitution.

Mr ANTHONY:

-The honourable member says that it is in the Constitution, but if the principle is so great, why do honourable members opposite not work towards constitutional change? They will not do that. Of course, the principle is not great enough! It is quite all right for little, compact electorates in Tasmania to have smaller numbers but big electorates elsewhere have to have the normal numbers. We know how phoney the Opposition’s proposals are. They are nothing more than a political device to try to concentrate political power and votes in the city areas, at the expense of country people.

I said that there could be a difference of 34,000 in the number of voters in electorates. This means that there can be 73 per cent more voters in one electorate than in another electorate under

Labor’s rules. So much for Labor’s principle of one vote one value. It means there can be a departure from the average of 32 per cent below and 18 per cent above. Yet Labor Party has hoodwinked many people into believing that it gave Australia one vote one value. What a fraud! What we have in Australia is a system which allows a far greater tolerance in electoral enrolments than the great majority of people believe is provided under the law. So why all this humbug about one vote one value? The trouble is that the tolerance is not applied when common sense and fairness require that it should be applied. The system requires that the tolerances I have described apply in a back-to-front manner. The result is that the relatively small electorates in Tasmania can have very small enrolments and that the large mainland electorates must have higher enrolments. It should be the other way around if honourable members believe in that principle so strongly.

I said earlier that the Commissioner’s discretion is circumscribed to a greater extent than occurs in any other country which can claim to have a democratic tradition such as ours. Let me mention two examples. In Britain in 1974 the larest enrolment was 118,000 voters in Antrim outh and the smallest was 23,000 voters in Western Isles- a difference of 95,000 voters. In Canada in 1974 the largest enrolment was 125,000 voters in Yorke-Scarborough and the smallest was 12,300 voters in Yukon- a difference of 1 12,000 voters. The British example is especially significant. Britain regards her electoral laws as being based on one vote one value but applies that principle, even in such a small, compact country, in ways that take greater account of factors such as remoteness, communication difficulties and distances, than we do in this vast continent of ours. Britain, in other words, does not adopt the rigid, unthinking, mathematical approach that we do, but tries to see that voters in every part of the country have some opportunity for equality of representation. I think it is about time we did the same. The National Country Party is in complete agreement with the Leader of the Opposition on this point- or at least with the views he expressed a few years ago when he was in a more rational frame of mind.

Speaking in this House on an occasion which should be recorded in the history books, he said the 20 per cent tolerance above or below the quota was ‘perfectly reasonable’. Let me repeat that: the Leader of the Opposition is on record in Hansard as saying that the 20 per cent tolerance is ‘perfectly reasonable’. He emphasised that he was speaking impartially. ‘I am speaking impartially and without party political bias on this matter’, he said. He went on to say on the same occasion that the principles enunciated in the Electoral Act should be ‘preserved and enshrined in the Constitution’. So what we have is the Leader of the Opposition saying, when he speaks impartially and without party political bias, that the 20 per cent tolerance is perfectly reasonable and should be preserved- in fact, should be enshrined in the Constitution. I suggest that all those people who have been conned into seeing the Leader of the Opposition as the great saviour of the principles of democracy ought to look at what he says when he speaks in different circumstances.

The fact is, of course, that a 20 per cent tolerance is perfectly reasonable- for all the reasons I and others have described over and over again, in this House and elsewhere. A 20 per cent tolerance is absolutely necessary if the commissioners are to be able to draw boundaries that go even some of the way towards providing some opportunity for equality of representation. But we are told that it is far more important to see that there are more or less equal numbers of people in each electorate than to try to ensure that each elector enjoys at least some equality of representation with his fellow citizens. No one, except the National Country Party, is prepared to say that the rights of people, the interests of people, should come before theories based on numbers and an irrational attachment to an allegedly sacred principle- a principle which, in practice, is not applied.

What we have is a situation in which hypocritical lip-service is paid to a principle while approval is given to a practice which ignores that

Erinciple- and in fact turns it upside down. We ave a situation in which people are told that there is a 10 per cent tolerance, while in fact a 35 per cent tolerance is actually perpetrated in the current redistribution proposals; but, of course, it cannot be applied in a reasonable and sensible way, whereby the big electorates can get the tolerance that should be given. It is about time there was an end to all the nonsense and hypocrisy about one vote, one value. It is about time there was some attempt made to understand the real difficulties faced by country people in gaining adequate and fair political representation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Right Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister’s time has expired.

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

( 5. 1 3)-The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has just perpetrated another of his tiresome whinges about electoral democracy in Australia. Now we have been warned: He wants to alter the Constitution of Australia to provide that Tasmania shall have only the number of electorates to which its population would entitle it; that is, he wants Tasmania to lose two divisions in the House of Representatives. He wants to take out of the Constitution the safeguard which says that original States, of which Tasmania is one, shall always have at least five representatives in this chamber. He complains about this.

Mr Anthony:

– I rise on a point of order.

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

-He says that, on the basis of population, they should have only three members of the House of Representatives.

Mr Anthony:

– I wish to explain. I did not want the Constitution changed. The Labor Party should have the Constitution changed if it is to hold to its principle of one vote one value.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Deputy Prime Minister knows that that is not a basis for a point of order. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

– Of course he does. He cannot bully you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Labor Government tried to amend the Constitution at a referendum in May 1974 to provide that, as nearly as practicable, there should be the same number of people in every electorate on the mainland. That, of course, is what the Constitution already ensures in deciding the number of members there shall be between the States on the mainland. The number of members in the House of Representatives between the States on the mainland is determined by their respective populations. The Labor Government wanted to alter the Constitution to provide that the number of people in the various electorates on the mainland within each State should be based directly on population also. That is one of the great reforms that the Warren Supreme Court has achieved in the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) refers to other provisions in other democracies. The greatest of federal democracies, the United States, under the Supreme Court’s prescription now says there shall be, as nearly as practicable, the same population in all districts for the House of Representatives and in all districts for the State legislatures. That is the sort of provision we ought to have in the Australian Constitution. The people have been warned. If, on 10 December, they were to be so misguided as to give another term to the FraserAnthony Government, the Deputy Prime Minister would be doing his level best to restore that margin of 20 per cent that used to apply until after the joint sitting of this Parliament in 1974. Not only did the people at the election of 1974 say that there should be no greater than a 10 per cent variation from the average numbers in an electorate for the States -

Mr Sullivan:

– You lied then and you are lying now.

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

– It was carried. It was one of the Bills -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Annitage)Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call upon the honourable member for Riverina to withdraw that remark.

Mr Sullivan:

– Withdraw what remark, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-As I heard it, you just stated that the Leader of the Opposition was lying.

Mr Sullivan:

– Was what- blind? No. I withdraw the remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I distinctly heard the honourable member for Riverina use the word ‘lying’.

Mr Sullivan:

– I withdrew the remark.

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

– If the quota for the electorates in a State is 60,000, if there was a 20 per cent margin, as there used to be until the Joint Sitting of this Parliament brought it down to 10 per cent, there could be at the outset of a distribution some electorates with 72,000 electors and others with 48,000 electors. That is not democracy. There could be adjacent electorates, one with half as many electors again. The right honourable member for Richmond quoted something I said at the first distribution I spoke on in this House in 1955. He at least might nave had the grace to admit that, in the Constitutional Review Committee’s report of 1958 and 1959, 1 was the one who insisted that the margin should be reduced to 10 per cent. The two Country Party members of that Committee, Mr Dnimmond and Mr Hamilton, supported that recommendation. Twenty years ago decent Country Party men said that a 10 per cent margin was all that was needed. I take up the right honourable gentleman in the case of the electorate of Kalgoorlie which is the largest in area in the world. This distribution enlarges that electorate still further. From the report which we are debating, it would appear that the enrolment in Kalgoorlie is the smallest of any division in Western

Australia. If, however, Aborigines in Western Australia were encouraged to enrol, as distinct from being deterred from enrolling, it would have an enrolment in excess of the 10 per cent margin- in fact, in excess of the 20 per cent margin.

The Western Australian redistribution enshrines the most serious and deliberate discrimination against Aborigines in Australia. The result is not only grave injustice against the Aboriginal people but also unfairness for the electors of Kalgoorlie as a whole. As a result of this discrimination against Aborigines, the new electorate of Kalgoorlie is larger in size and larger in population than it need be if all eligible Abongines were enrolled. Discrimination against Aborigines has diluted the vote of all other Australians in the Kalgoorlie electorate. There can be now no doubt about the source of that discrimination. It is the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government of Western Australia. Further, the Federal Government is failing in its obligation to encourage Aborigines to enrol and exercise their democratic rights. Evidence given in the Western Australian Court of Disputed Returns last month on an appeal in relation to the electorate of Kimberley in the State election in February puts that beyond doubt. It is clear that the Liberal Party has engaged in a deliberate campaign to discourage and deter Aborigines from enrolling and from voting.

The existing electorate of Kalgoorlie had the highest population over the age of 18 of all the 10 Western Australian Federal electorates at the time of the census in June 1976; yet it had the second lowest enrolment. The Kalgoorlie population over 18 years of age at the census was 86,743. The enrolment at June 1976 was only 59,161-68.2 per cent of the population over 18 years of age. By contrast, Forrest, with a population over 1 8 years of age of 59,936 at that time, had an enrolment of 58,719-97.96 per cent of those 18 years of age and over were enrolled. The proportion of those enrolments to the population over 1 8 years of age at June last year in the other electorates in Western Australia was as follows: Curtin, 95.5 1 per cent; Moore, 92.28 per cent; Fremantle, 91.91 percent; Swan, 91.36 per cent; Canning, 91.25 per cent; Tangney, 89.20 per cent; Stirling, 87.46 per cent; Perth, 84.93 per cent. But the proportion for Kalgoorlie was only 68.2 percent.

The percentage of the eligible population enrolled for the State, other than for the Kalgoorlie division, was 91.09 per cent. The Western Australia quota is now 69,443 electors. The new Kalgoorlie has 65,070 electors. On the old boundaries, Kalgoorlie would have been 14 per cent above the new quota if 91 per cent- the State average- had been enrolled. Instead the new Kalgoorlie has had to be even further extended to come within the new quota. If the Aboriginal population had been properly enrolled, Kalgoorlie, already the world’s largest electorate, could have been reduced in size. Instead, it has been enlarged.

Even when allowance is made for the number of itinerant workers in the electorate of Kalgoorlie there remains one overwhelming reason for the huge discrepancy between population and electors. Plainly, Aboriginals are not being enrolled and, if enrolled, are being discouraged from voting. The extent of discrimination against and intimidation of Aborigines has been fully disclosed in the Court of Disputed Returns over the last few months. Evidence was given that five lawyers, acting on behalf of the Liberal Party, had flown to the electorate, purportedly to act as scrutineers. In a letter written by the Liberal Party member, Mr Alan Ridge, to Mr P. J. Quilty of Ruby Plains Station it was stated:

You are possibly aware that on polling day we had five young solicitors fly up to the Kimberley region to work as scrutineers for us at places where there was a large Aboriginal population. As a result of their activities I believe that we now have enough evidence to try and convince people of the necessity for amending the Electoral Act in relation to illiterate voters. If this is not done I would anticipate that by the next election there could be in the order of 3,000 to 4,000 Aborigines on the roll and under such circumstances the Liberal Party would be doomed to failure.

In another letter tabled in evidence, Mr Ridge wrote to an earth moving contractor at Derby, Jeremy O’Driscoll, who had acted as a scrutineer for the Liberal Party and said.

I wanted you to know also that I didn’t underestimate the value of your ‘trick ‘ at GoGo station on 1 9th. We could have been in real trouble without the services of a person such as yourself as scrutineer and I am extremely grateful.

Evidence was given that 34 Aborigines had been deprived of their right to vote at that polling booth alone by this ‘trick’. Evidence also was given that the Liberal lawyers deliberately humiliated and confused Aboriginal voters. Aboriginal elders were asked: ‘Are you over 18?’ Others were asked: ‘Are you a natural born Australian?’ Others again were asked: ‘Are you a subject of Queen Elizabeth II?’ Only Aborigines were asked these questions. One of the five Liberal lawyers, Mr Haydn Wesley Dixon, told the judge that he had decided that ‘any lawful means could be used to stop illiterate Aborigines from voting’. He said that ‘he had regarded illiterate Aborigines as being invalid potential voters because of the pressure he was told was being applied to them’. The Constitution defines the grounds for disfranchisement. Illiteracy is, of course, not one of them. It is a monstrous suggestion that there should be a literacy test for electors. It would enable the wholesale disfranchisement not only of Aborigines but also of migrants and indeed scores of thousands of handicapped Australians. Literacy in what? Why limit it to English? Literacy tests are the most notorious weapons against civil liberties in South Africa and right back to the days of the post-bellum deep south.

Not all forms of discrimination are so blatant as that practised against Aborigines in Western Australia. The question we can legitimately ask now is: If in Kalgoorlie, the largest electorate in the world, the electorate in Western Australia which already has the largest population but the smallest enrolment, we find that Aborigines who have exercised their option to enrol are being deterred from voting might we not assume that they have also been deterred from enrolling? That is why this electorate is being made still largerbecause Liberal lawyers and other Liberals have deterred Aborigines from exercising their right to vote as Australian electors.

I want to mention one other form of discrimination, and that is the discrimination against persons who are Commonwealth citizens, in particular citizens from Cyprus and Malta and who therefore, under our laws, are not only entitled to vote after they have resided in Australia for six months but are compelled to vote. This matter has been raised by Senator Mulvihill and others in the Senate and by some of us in this House. On 5 October this year I asked:

Will the Government make it known that Commonwealth nationals are not only eligible to be enrolled as voters but also required to be enrolled and that, under Australia’s system of compulsory enrolment and voting, they are subject to the same penalties as Australian citizens for failing to enrol and vote?

On 1 1 October the Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Withers, wrote to me saying that steps had been taken to ensure that the correct information was given to the divisional returning officers and to persons seeking to obey the law. He sent to me the provisional notice which is to go in post offices in Australia. I hope you can see it from there, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a foolscap sheet listing over three dozen Commonwealth countries. No emphasis at all is given to the fact that Cypriots and Maltese who reside here are entitled to vote. In fact they are obliged to enrol and to vote. Yet we find from information in letters to the Sydney Morning Herald, for instance, such as the one from Dr George Paxinos -

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

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The happenings of redistributions should never be imagined to be accidental. They are calculated and they occur in that way. The fortunes of redistributions also are not accidental. That is quite clear when one looks at the results of redistributions over a long period of time. In any redistribution half the members ought to be disadvantaged and half the members advantaged. The pluses ought to balance out the minuses. Yet an examination of what has happened in redistributions over many years shows that with a government side of 65 or 70 members, 20 of whom are Ministers, no Ministers are even in danger. Thenseats are never put at risk. They are never significantly disadvantaged in a redistribution. Were the commissioners to be totally unaware of the political consequences of their decisions, that would be an impossibility. So, I begin by making the very firm point that it is a statistical fact that distribution commissioners are aware of the political consequences of their decisions. The history of Australia since World War II verifies that fact absolutely and overwhelmingly. One’s fate in redistributions is not a random number in the wheel of fortune.

I turn now to the redistribution as it concerns Queensland. The distribution commission in Queensland consisted of three people- two Commonwealth public servants and one State public servant, who is a statutory officer, the State Surveyor-General. It is a widely known fact in that State that the non-Commonwealth officer has been desperately unhappy about what occurred in the redistribution. That has been made known to people. It is known to honourable members in this place- honourable members who are not scheduled to speak-and it is not known indirectly. It is quite clear that one of the commissioners felt that the minds of the other commissioners were not open in respect of the redistribution and he desperately considered making a minority report. That information has been conveyed directly and indirectly to a number of people, and some honourable members in Parliament House who are not scheduled to speak are aware of it. So, the circumstances of a redistribution immediately become obvious and the nature of the commissioners becomes obvious.

I have referred elsewhere to the manner in which recommendations are made for people to become distribution commissioners. In Queensland two such appointments were made within relatively recent times. One person appointed was the Commonwealth Electoral Officer, who was new in that State, and the other was a Commonwealth public servant in Queensland. Both were appointed to their positions very recently. Mr Coleman, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer, who must take the blame for what has happened in Queensland, has to bear the brunt of any criticism. I believe that that is quite reasonable and ought to be so. Those two people represented a majority of those who would make the decision.

I was always desperately unhappy about a previous redistribution through which I lived, and for the first time I make a criticism of it. The last redistribution went through this House in 1968, and one of the people in my State who was concerned with it was a senior Minister, a PostmasterGeneral. One of the commissioners appointed was the Director-General of Posts and Telegraph in that State. I always maintainedthis is the first time in 10 years that I have stated it- that there had to be a very severe clash of interests in that redistribution. It is for that reason that I have said that the composition of many of the distribution commissions in 1975, in which Commonwealth public servants did not constitute a majority, was correct. The 1975 redistribution could not be impugned because of the honesty of the commissioners. I said that in the House at the time, and I admit that it was only out of party loyalty that I voted against that redistribution. But the principle remains and it ought to be adhered to. That redistribution was impeccable in its procedures.

I turn now to the events of this redistribution, both as it concerns myself and as it concerns a wider sphere. I deal with my own case first, in terms of the principles involved. An extraordinary selectivity of principle was involved in this redistribution in respect of the seat of Lilley. An area had to be added to the seat, and the only area added was one which had the greatest separation from the seat. The key principle was the attitude of the commissioners to what are known as freeways. The area added to my seat is separated from it by both a railway line and a proposed freeway. No other area was so separated from the seat by clear, continuous and complete boundaries. Yet that was the only area added to the seat. It also happened to be an area which was rather disadvantageous to my own position. That was not unknown to the commissioners, as I indicated from the evidence which can be adduced since 1945. No suggestions were made for a change. A change was not contemplated. It was the only area on the border which would have been somewhat disadvantageous to my position. I am puzzled when I realise that the commissioners went out of their way to make freeways the boundaries between electorates on the other side of Brisbane. Where possible they made freeways the boundaries between the Griffith and Moreton electorates and between the Bowman and Moreton electorates. In no other way did the boundaries exist

The New South Wales commissioners went out of their way to make freeways the legitimate boundaries of electorates where they could. Freeways separate the electorate of Prospect and the proposed new seat of Macquarie and the electorates of Robertson and Hunter. In Victoria, the commissioners also used freeways on the north and south of the Yarra River as boundaries wherever it was possible. I am puzzled that the commissioners when drawing up boundaries for one side of the Brisbane River should think differently from what they did on the south side of the river and differently from the commissioners in New South Wales and from the commissioners in Victoria. I am overwhelmingly convinced that they were aware of the consequences of what they were doing. Not for one moment do I retreat from that position. Given the composition of the tribunal, the commissioners obviously felt that they could adopt that course.

I come to the final changes that were made to the redistribution proposals in Queensland. I find some of these the most fascinating of the lot. Two changes were made between the first publication of the maps and the second publication of the maps. One change was made in north Queensland between the electorates of Dawson and Kennedy. It was also a proposed change. It was put forward by way of an objection. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) would immediately agree with that. In south-east Queensland, the commissioners made a change. They changed the electorate of the Gold Coast to the electorate of McPherson and changed the electorate of McPherson to the electorate of Fadden. I am fascinated as to what caused them to make those changes. I say to the House: I am totally convinced they acted on evidence other than that presented to them in public documents.

In Queensland the names of electorates are important. If an electorate changes its name and a person contests that electorate, the seat is open for challenge by another party because of the three-cornered contest atmosphere that operates in Queensland. We know that. It does not matter whether one agrees with what has occurred.

Were the name of an electorate changed from, say, McPherson to the Gold Coast, the Gold Coast electorate becomes open for challenge by another party. Miraculously the electorate names were changed by the commissioners, but nowhere, as I look through the volurninous document entitled ‘Redistribution of Queensland into Electoral Divisions’ can I see that such a change was proposed. The commissioners, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, obviously had a vision and felt that they could make that change. They felt that they could make that change with impunity. They felt that they could make that change with confidence. The political consequences of that change ought to be known to the House. The political consequences of a name change are greater in Queensland than in any other part of Australia. Names of electorates were changed in Queensland. They were not changed elsewhere in Australia. The changmg of names of electorates in normally left to this House. The Fox report of 1969 made it quite clear that the authority to name electorates lay with this House, and yet out of the blue, without any suggestions under section 2 1 of the Electoral Act for such a proposal, the commissioners changed the names of electorates. I shall read section 2 1 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act because that is the section which governs the final changes between the first publication of the maps, the 30 day period for objections and the final publication of the maps. It states:

Suggestions or objections in writing may be lodged with the Distribution Commissioners not later than 30 days after the advertisement referred to in the last preceding section, and the Commissioners shall consider all suggestions and objections so lodged before making their report.

It is quite clear that the commissioners considered some other objections which were not lodged before they made their report. I believe an explanation is required from the commissioners. I am not happy with the position. No reasonable person could possibly be happy with the position. I believe tracks have not been covered very well. It was an error not to propose a change. What the commissioners did was an error. It is widely known in the House that over recent years commissioners have not been particularly interested in naming electorates. They have shied away from taking upon themselves the precise naming of electorates. They have tended to give electorates merely geographical names and leave it for the Parliament to decide. That is what has happened in this case. The decision in the instance to which I refer came from nowhere. I am puzzled by it. I am also disturbed by it. The House can well understand why I find myself unable to vote for the proposed redistribution.

Debate interrupted.

page 2538

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PRESENT BILLS

The Deputy Clerk- Notices of intention to present Bills at the next sitting have been received as follows:

From the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. A Queensland Grants Special Assistance Bill, and a Tasmania Grant, Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd, Bill.

From the Minister for National Resources: A Coal Research Assistance Bill and a States Grants Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Amendment BUl.

From the Minister Representing the Minister for Social Security: A Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill.

From the Minister for Primary Industry: An Apple and Pear Stabilisation Amendment Bill, No. 2.

page 2538

REDISTRIBUTION OF NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Debate resumed.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– I move that the following words be added to the motion:

And the name Lang be substituted for Grayndler.

My reason for doing that is that in the new electorate, or should I call it the new, new electorate of Grayndler, the constituents are made up of 11,384 from Grayndler, 2,485 from Blaxland, 35,181 from Evans and 22,208 from the seat of Lang. Yet the commissioners have proposed the name of Grayndler. Apparently the Government has accepted the name of Grayndler.

Mr Neil:

-Why not call it Evans?

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, it should be called the seat of Evans, as I intend to show. But as it is not being called the seat of Evans I prefer to have it called the seat of Lang. The reason it should be called the seat of Evans is that in 1968 a select committee of the Parliament, the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Naming of Electoral Divisions, was appointed. The Committee was chaired by E. M. C. Fox. One of the members was Mr Gordon Bryant and another member was Mr Duke Bonnett. Those last two members are in the Parliament now. The Select Committee established by the House of Representatives stated on page 7 of the report:

  1. That, when two or more Divisions are partially combined at a redistribution, as far as possible the name of the new Division should be that of the old Division which has the greatest number of electors within the new boundaries.

The South Australian Commissioners in their report on the distribution at page 3, paragraph 8, said:

For the purpose of this Report, your Commissioners have allocated names to proposed Divisions on the basis of the name of the existing Division providing a preponderance of the electors. This decision is in accord with recommendations made in a report in 1969 by a House of Representatives Select Committee on the naming of Electoral Divisions (Parliamentary Paper, No. 35-1969). However, your Commissioners submit that the name of Angas has greater significance to South Australia than that of Wakefield.

The New South Wales Commissioners in their report at page 4, paragraph 10, said:

Your Commissioners are aware that it is not their prerogative to name Electoral Divisions and have, as a matter of convenience, allocated tentative names in order to refer to the Divisions concerned. In allocating tentative names to the proposed Divisions of Parramatta, Sydney and Grayndler, your Commissioners recognised that the majority of the electors included in each of those proposed Divisions are currently enrolled for Divisions having other names. While they feel that Parramatta and Sydney are appropriate place names, they appreciate that the position m respect of the name Grayndler is not so clear.

Why they named it Grayndler, I do not know. I agree with some of the statements made by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), who spoke before me in the debate, that pressure was applied on the Commissioners to name the seat Grayndler. In the original proposal brought down by the commissioners the seat of Lowe had 22,208 of the constituents from the existing seat of Lang. After the protests had been heard there was a clean sweep of those 22,208 constituents out of the proposed seat of Lowe into the new, new seat of Grayndler. If the select committee of this Parliament has any authority at all, the new, new seat of Grayndler should be called Evans. I propose that one of the reasons that it has not been called Evans is that the present honourable member for Evans (Mr Abel) is endeavouring to become the new honourable member for Lowe, and it suits him very much if there is no division named Evans. It is not possible for him to win the new, new seat of Grayndler because it happens to be a Labor seat. If the name of Evans is kept for that area, the present honourable member for Evans might not have the opportunity of running against the present honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon). So, because of the pressures applied the name of Evans was allowed to become non-existent. Then for some reason- some untold reason- instead of going down to the next electorate with the largest number of constituents and naming the seat Lang, the Commissioners passed over to the name of Grayndler.

The name of Grayndler, of course, is not a particularly well known one. It has been in existence only since 1949, and so has the name of Lowe, for that matter. But the division of Lang has been in existence since 1 90 1 . It was one of the original divisions. Yet, the decision was taken by the Commissioners to name this new, new seat of Grayndler, Grayndler. They have passed over a division which has been in existence since 1901 and which has the second largest number of constituents and called the seat Grayndler. I am not a very suspicious person, but I cannot help being suspicious because there was talk that the present honourable member for Grayndler, Mr Tony Whitlam, and myself were likely to oppose each other for the seat of Grayndler. It was indicated that perhaps I had the numbers. Because the honourable member for Grayndler is an honourable man he has decided he will run for the seat of St George. That was proposed earlier. The name of Grayndler was retained in order to try to create embarrassment between myself and the present honourable member for Grayndler. The present honourable member for Grayndler will become the new honourable member for St George.

I suggest that in this instance the recommendations of the select committee should be followed and if the present incumbent for the seat of Evans does not want that name retained the choice of name should pass down to the seat with the next largest numbers in the territory. If that name is not wanted an impartial name could be chosen. The seat of Parkes was in existence for some time. The name of Parkes is certainly much better known than either Grayndler or Evans. So if an impartial and neutral name is wanted let us call the electorate Parkes because this area was substantially in the old seat of Parkes a few years ago. It may be that the name of Parkes is not considered appropriate. In this case, I point out that the late Joe Cahill, a Premier of” New South Wales, resided in the Marrickville district. Perhaps the seat could be called Cahill. However, of course, I would prefer to see it called Lang. I have held the seat of Lang now for about 25 years. Only one other member has held the seat for longer than that period. Honourable members will break my intended record if they do not change their minds and adopt the amendment that I have moved; namely, that the present seat of Grayndler be called Lang.

I do not want to go into some of the skulduggery that went on over this distribution, but one only had to look at the electoral map to see that the proposed seat of Lowe was aligned northsouth whereas most of the other seats were aligned east-west. I again suggest that pressures were applied in the first distribution proposal to have the seat of Lowe retained and the name of Lowe retained. Lowe was one of the seats that should have been abolished if this distribution had been carried out correctly. If it had been, we would not be in the present situation. I ask all honourable members to adopt the amendment that I have moved.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Crean:

– I formally second the amendment. I might say that I can think of nothing more eucumenical than that a very devout Catholic should have a seat named after a great Presbyterian churchman, John Dunmore Lang.

Debate interrupted.

page 2539

INCORPORATION OF DOCUMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Earlier today the Prime Minister was given leave to incorporate in Hansard a transcript of a This Day Tonight tape recording. Mr Speaker indicated that incorporation of the document was subject to an absence of printing difficulties. Mr Speaker has now examined the document and ascertained that its incorporation in Hansard does not present any techmcal problem. Accordingly, he has instructed that it be incorporated in the report.

The document read as follows-

This transcript is taken from a tape recording: The Library is not responsible for any errors or omissions.

page 2539

SPECIAL 30 MINUTE PHONE-IN TO MR WHITLAM

T.D.T. 26. 10.77

DAVID FLATMAN: Good evening, welcome to T.D.T. Election fever runs high in Canberra tonight as press and television crews await the Prime Minister’s next move. After a day of intense speculation, Mr Fraser arrived at Yarralumla just an hour ago to confer with the GovernorGeneral Sir John Kerr on the anticipated Federal election. For the Opposition, a wish come true, after Mr Whitlam ‘s challenge yesterday to Mr Fraser to call an early poll. The issues of an election campaign now are fairly obvious. The economy, unemployment, uranium and who is running the country.

Tonight we are giving you the chance to put your questions on any relevant issue to the Opposition Leader Gough Whitlam who is now in our Canberra studio. We already have a number of questions recorded this afternoon, as you can see we are taking more. If you would like to call during the program we will take your questions and put as many as possible during the next half hour. The numbers to ring here in Sydney are 4382680 and 4382440. Now we are crossing to Mr whitlam with George Negus in Canberra.

GEORGE NEGUS: Mr Whitlam, thanks very much for joining us . . .

Mr WHITLAM: A pleasure.

GEORGE NEGUS: . . . predictably the first question has got a touch of deja vu about it. Its from a Mr Raynor of Hawker who asks. ‘Why do you think Mr Fraser has visited the Governor-General at Yarralumla tonight?’

Mr WHITLAM: Well my guess is the same as everybody else’s. To discuss whether the Governor-General will give him a premature election.

GEORGE NEGUS: Are you able to tell us then, Mr Whitlam, when you think Mr Fraser will tell the country about this election.

Mr WHITLAM: Well I would guess the normal time to do would be in Parliament after question time tomorrow. But, of course, the cat and mouse game should go on for a little while yet There is no reason we should not be told tonight.

GEORGE NEGUS: Another question, this time from a Mr Smithers of Scullin who asks ‘on the eve of what looks like being a Federal election do you feel like yesterday’s man?’

Mr WHITLAM: No.

GEORGE NEGUS: Anything else you can add for Mr Smither’sofScullin?

Mr WHITLAM: Oh no.

GEORGE NEGUS: I think we have a question from somewhere else now?

DAVID FLATMAN: Yes we have got a question from Sydney, one of our viewer’s question we recorded this afternoon.

MICHAEL BOYLAN: Michael Boylan, West Ryde. Mr Whitlam, why do you not stand down as Labor Party leader. First you are the Liberal’s greatest electoral asset because thousands of people will use you as an excuse for not voting Labor. If Hayden were leader they would not have that excuse. Second, you ought to have stood down because of two crucial foreign policy positions. First your position on East Timor is appeasement of the brutal corrupt Indonesian military regime, and second by your willingness to accept half a million dollars from the Iraqui’s for Labor Party funds, you have fatally compromised Labor’s even handed policy on the Middle East. For these reasons why do you not stand down now? Not just in the interests of the Labor Party but so that Australians can have a Labor Government after two years of madness.

Mr WHITLAM: Well I’m not going to stand down because the Party does not want me to. Either in the Parliament or in the Branches. Anybody going around Australia and seeing how I am received at any public meeting would see that the public, the Party want me to lead at these next elections. There are two things you said on Foreign policy. One is about East Timor. You have completely misrepresented the party’s position and my position and then you make an allegation about being willing to receive half a million dollars from Iraq for the last elections. A newspaper said that, I have sued it and it is settling the case.

CUVE HAIME: Clive Haime in Adelaide, Mr Whitlam. A South Australian viewer Mr Frank Clark of Nurioopta puts to you this proposition. He says ‘I cannot vote Labor when you and your party’s performance between 1972 and 1975 had unquestionable merit in its idealism and humanist aims but was abyssmal in its pathetic attempts to cope with the realities of 20th century political power. Why should I give you another chance to reaffirm the political sobriety of the conservatives. What chance is there for voters like me?’

Mr WHITLAM: Well in fact, in our three years of. government we brought Australia up to thus part of this century. Obviously in External Affairs we put Australia in a proper position in the world. There can be no question about that. On internal matters we also brought Australia very much up to date. The administrative arrangements and reforms we made have been continued and are applauded on all sides. It is true that we were unfortunate enough to be in office when unemployment and inflation hit every western country. It didn’t hit Australia any worse than other countries. I would make this point however, in 1976 and 1977 inflation has gone down in other western countries it hasn’t in Australia, unemployment has gone down in other western countries, it has gone up in Australia by 32 per cent.

GEORGE NEGUS: I think the next question is from Melbourne, Mr Whitlam.

PETER COUCHMAN: First question inaudible for technical reasons. I have a question that I will read. This is a question that I have taken from Tasmania because we have Tasmanian viewers with us tonight. It’s a question from Mrs Von Beberer. She asks Mr Whitlam ‘How can the public have faith in the Government led by you when your previous Government created the worst inflation in the history of Australia, created the worst unemployment, showed instability in an executive position and virtually strangled private enterprise? ‘

Mr WHITLAM: There was not the worst inflation in Australia under my Government. The worst inflation in Australia was in the early 1950s under Mr Menzies as he then was. We did not produce the worst unemployment in Australia, Mr Fraser’s Government has produced that. He has increased unemployment by 32 per cent in the 22 months that he has been Prime Minister.

PETER COUCHMAN: Another question from Tasmania, this time from a Mrs Parr who lives in Moonah, ‘If you were re-elected would you travel as much overseas as you did last time?’ And she also asks ‘Would you charter your own 707”?

Mr WHITLAM: I would probably not travel as much overseas because I would have another Minister as Foreign Minister. You should remember that in the first 12 months, the first 1 1 months of our government, I was Foreign Minister as well as Prime Minister and I handed over the job of Foreign Minister when we had got right our relations with the United States and Japan and with our neighbours and with China. If, as I was advised previously, one should, for security reasons, travel in a chartered aircraft I would do so. I would point out that Mr Fraser has adopted the technique of having the officials who go with him travel commercial and charge their bills to their Departments. Mr Fraser, in fact, has been out of the country more days than I was in the same time and the bills have been just as great but they have been dispersed among all the Departments from whom the officials came instead of being on one bill for my Department only.

MELBOURNE ANNOUNCER: A constitutional question, Mr Whitlam, from a Mr Anderson of Malvern. ‘On an evening where Mr Fraser is discussing who can tell what with the Governor-General, do you still believe that the Governor-General should always follow the Prime Minister’s advice?’

Mr WHITLAM: Yes, as the Queen does.

MELBOURNE ANNOUNCER: Okay then, another quick one, you took me by surprise then. An election question from Don Ryan of Carnegie. ‘How many seats will you win in the next Federal election?’

Mr WHITLAM: Thirty.

JUNE HEFFERAN: This is another election question its from Mrs Curtin from Hurstville and she wants to know ‘What would be your policy on a national superannuation scheme and the abolition of the means test on pensions?’

Mr WHITLAM: The introduction of a national superannuation scheme is a very difficult one, I won’t pretend to have the answer on that. We had a committee which we appointed in the first couple of months to make a report on that. It came up with a divided report. And it will I suspect be quite some time before there is a national superannuation scheme in Australia. Its one of the most complicated matters that Governments have to consider and the other matter was the abolition of the means test- our Party is committed to the abolition of the means test. We did, by stages in each of our three budgets, abolish the means test for everybody 70 years of age or above. We’re still committed to that. I think it will have to come in rather gradually from now on. I would point out that we are the only government that ever abolished the means test for anyone. We want to do it but it will be quite some time I guess before it can be done.

Mrs LEMMINGTON of Botany: Don’t you think that the recent difference between your attitude on Timor and that of the Party as a whole, points out to you that you are out of step?

GEORGE NEGUS: Could you elaborate a little on that Mr Whitlam?

Mr WHITLAM: No.

Mr ROCHE, Oakley: If the Labor Party is returned at an election to Government will Mr Whitlam persist in borrowing money from overseas private sources or will he use our own Commonwealth Bank funds?

Mr WHITLAM: Well if one needs to borrow money from overseas one would do so through ordinary public sources. I don ‘t get the gist of the question about using Commonwealth Bank funds. Of course bank funds are used by all governments in Australia, not really Commonwealth Bank funds. If you’re referring to overseas borrowings then of course you may have in mind that we were contemplating borrowing $2,000m US dollars for temporary purposes. The present government has in fact done so.

Mrs GWEN PARSONS, Nambucca Heads: I would like to ask Mr Whitlam does he know why we have got to have an early election when the Prime Minister and the members of the present government all begged and stressed of the public m Australia to give them a full three year uninterrupted turn in office, stating that they could not possibly bring the country back on its feet, restore full employment and give all Australians full confidence unless he has a full three year uninterrupted term in office, and he has only done two years.

Mr WHITLAM: Well it is quite obvious that Mr Fraser wants to drop his bundle after two years instead of after three years which he said he needed, because his policies aren’t working and it’s very obvious that if he waits until next May, which is the proper time to have the elections for both the houses of the federal parliament he will be seen still more obviously to have made a mess of the economy, particularly in the increased unemployment which we will then be suffering. I pointed out that the proper time is next May and I say that for this reason. Last May, at a referendum, over 62 per cent of the Australian electors said, two thingsthey thought that elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate should be held at the same time. They also said that they thought the two houses should commence their terms at the same time. Now the half of the Senate which has to go to the people next will still continue till the end of next June. Whenever we elect the new half of the Senate you won’t get those senators becoming senators until 1 July, so if there is an election in December you will still have the old senate until the end of next June and when you get new senators they will already be seven months stale.

GEORGE NEGUS: So you quite clearly have changed ?our mind Mr Whidam because you are on the public record ast year as saying you thought about this time would be a reasonable time for it.

Mr WHITLAM: Yes but I said that because that was before the people expressed their views so very clearly at the referendum last May and ever since then, as you know quite well, I have constantly said, I said on the Sunday after that referendum, that the proper time to have the elections would be in May 1978 because that is as close as you can get to the time when the Senators you elect have to take up their office. It takes a few weeks to count the Senate votes, you want to have senators who represent the contemporary point of view.

PETER GOMBRETZ, Yarra Glen: If you were Prime Minister, what would you do if the unions refused to accept a decision that was handed down by the Arbitration Commission?

Mr WHITLAM: Well there are very few cases where union do not accept decisions handed down by the Arbitration Commission. The only thing that I want to stress is that the Arbitration Commission is the best equipped body to solve industrial disputes and if governments buy into those disputes they only inflame those disputes. No government ever setded an industrial dispute. The Arbitration Commission settles 99 per cent of them.

Mrs BERBERY, from Ross, Tasmania: After the next election do you expect to lead the next Labor Government- I can imagine your answer to that one- but she wants to know who would be your Treasurer, Mr Hayden or Mr Hurford?

Mr WHITLAM: The first question: yes. The second, Mr Hurford. I add, that Mr Hayden doesn’t want to be Treasurer in my next government, he wants to be Minister for Foreign Aflairs and I think he will be that and Defence Minister as well.

Mr PEARSON of Hughsdale: Will a Labor Government protect the small business and local industry any more than the present government and if so, how?

Mr WHITLAM: Well we would certainly try to and we should. The small businessman of course is ignored in all the programmes that the Fraser Government has brought in. Its policies are devoted to the interests of big business and very often the overseas companies. The things that it has done for business, such as investment allowances and mining concessions and the various protective measures, tariffs and quotas, haven’t helped the small businessman one bit.

Q: Schoolgirl sitting for Higher School Certificate: She wants to know what your Government, if you were elected, would do for school leavers and their future prospects.

Mr WHITLAM: Well of course they are the hardest hit part of the community. There is 200,000 of them leaving school at the end of this year and only 100,000 of them will get jobs. The biggest thing that has to be done is to at least maintain the level of government expenditure. The big reason why unemployment and particularly youth unemployment, has grown so much in Australia- 32 per cent more people seeking jobs than there were 22 months ago, is that the Australian Federal Government has cut down on Government contracts and we’re the only federal government in the world where that’s happened, Canada and the United States and West Germany don’t do it and that’s why they don’t have as much unemployment, they haven’t had the rise in unemployment that we have had in Australia. The Government sector has been badly hit in Australia and the private sector which depends quite largely on government contracts, hospitals, education institutions, transport municipal institutions, it’s not been able to give the jobs that it always has been able to give in Australia, or which it can give in other federal countries.

Mrs MOORE, Clairmont, Western Australia: Should your government come into office, Mr Whitlam would you still favour sending aid to Indonesia in view of the fact that the aid might be used to prop up a repressive and corrupt government?

Mr WHITLAM: Not military aid.

Mr D’ARCY, Orange: If you were a Liberal, indeed a Liberal Prime Minister, would you be calling for a federal election in December?

Mr WHITLAM: No I would heed the very distinct impression that the view that the public expressed at the referendum last May. Over 62 per cent of them. I would be having elections for both houses as close to the time when the Senate has to have its new members. That is, I would be having it next May, that’s what the people said they wanted, they want elections at the same time, but they want the terms of both houses to date from the same time, they don’t want to elect senators who wont take their positions in the Senate for another seven months.

Mr WILSON, Mt Druitt: Wonders whether, given your view of the present Governor-General you might consider the Governor-General being elected by the people at general elections?

Mr WHITLAM: No I believe that the Governor-General ought to be appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Australian Prime Minister, that’s what’s happened ever since 193 1 and I think it’s the proper system and I also of course obviously think that the Governor-General of Australia ought to behave as the Queen behaves and of course as she and her ancestors for the last 100 years have, on the advice of their Prime Minister.

LINDY JENKINS, Elwood, Melbourne: She was listening to the senate today and heard a senator say that in Perth two years ago you signed a statement that you’d like to see uranium mined and she would like some clarification from you on that.

Mr WHITLAM: No I have never said anything of the sort. What I have said on uranium has been said in the Parliament and in recent months I have also spoken to several gatherings outside of the Parliament but I have never signed a statement like that. What I have done in the Parliament of course and as prime minister was to persuade Mr Justice Fox to chair an inquiry into the Ranger proposal and earlier to commission Mr Justice Woodward to conduct an inquiry into the effects of uranium and other matters on aboriginal lands in the Northern Territory.

Mr LOBB, Croydon: Wants to ask whether you have any remorse over the Gair affair?

Mr WHITLAM: Oh yes I suppose so yes. I am not going to elaborate on it. I am not going to say anything adverse to Senator Gair. The people of Queensland didn’t think he was too old to get another term in the Senate.

Mrs OLDERSTONE of Ivanhoe: Would you consider bringing a voluntary retiring age to SS to make more employment opportunities for young people?

Mr WHITLAM: No. This suggestion is made by very many people. I don’t believe that that is the way to get employment for our people, young and old, and I think it would be a shocking waste if people had to retire at 55 and I believe most people at 55 want to work and can make a big contribution. It would be a shocking waste to encourage them to or to compel them to retire.

ROSEMARY HARRIS, Canberra: What are Mr Whitlam ‘s views on whaling and if in the next election, whether that’s in December, April or May, the Labor government is restored to office, what steps will it take to stop disgraceful and unnecessary slaughter of these animals?

Mr WHITLAM: Well we would use all our influence to see that no more whales are killed. I would point out that this is not something that Australia can do single handed. It can only be done by international agreement because certainly beyond 200 miles-what’s that-320 kilometres from the coast of every country the ships of any nation can do what they like, whether killing whales or commit pollution or whatever it is, so our efforts would be directed to getting international arrangements to prevent the killing of any more whales by any country.

ESTHER RICE: There should be an aboriginal government for a while, it’s the only thing which would give them a chance. Do you agree?

Mr WHITLAM: No I don’t believe that one ought to segregate various parts of Australia’s population and have a separate government for them. I certainly believe that aboriginals ought to have better facilities for taking part in government. Our government did a very great deal to that end but- and I certainly deplore the shocking efforts that were made, and it has to be admitted that they were made by half a dozen Liberal solicitors at the last Western Australian state elections, to deter aborigines from voting although they had exercised their option of getting on the electoral roles. There’s far too few aboriginals who in fact have exercised that option of getting on the eleaoral role, particularly in the northern parts of Western Australia and Queensland.

Mr BRAND, Lakesland: What would a Labor Government do to lift the rural depression?

Mr WHITLAM: Well there are two great things that have to be done, the first is to see that the people that live in towns in the country are able to get decent facilities, and I take pride in the fact that my government did more to upgrade the educational and civic facilities, recreational facilities in country towns than all previous Australian governments, Federal Governments have never concerned themselves with that. The second thing is that for primary producers, the Australian government has to try to give honest advice as to the prospects of overseas markets. It^ a cruel deception that throughout the 1 960 ‘s in particular, Liberal Country Party Governments perpetrated on rural producers, just conning them into thinking that Britain could be frustrated or deterred from joining the European Economic Community and they were encouraged to put a great deal of effort and go into debt to produce things for which there was no real prospect of overseas sales. I think that was a cruel deception. But primary producers need to have a government which will give them frank advice as to export prospects and that’s not often been achieved. We at least emphasised in all the appointments we made to the marketing bodies, we emphasised people who had skill in marketing, not just producing, but marketing, you have got to have places where you can sell our rural products.

Mrs HALLIDAY, Tasmania: In assuming that Mr Fraser will be granted a December 10 election she asks how much is it going to cost taxpayers for the new Senate that will be elected on December 10 but won’t be able to take office until next June?

Mr WHITLAM: I don’t know how many million dollars are involved, I just don’t know. Let me put in a plug in here, that if we are to have a proper opportunity in Australia for political parties which are the essence of democracy in any country, if we are to have political parties able to put their points of view to the public then the taxpayers should subsidise political campaigns in proportion to the support that they get at the last elections and that is now done in every country in Western Europe and North America. Australia is now lagging behind. The only assistance which the taxpayers give political parties to give their story to the electors is free time on the ABC and not enough people look at the ABC.

Mr BETONSKI, East Malvern: What will you do on the question of sanctions against South Africa, will you take some action or will you just go on talking?

Mr WHITLAM: Well we did something about South Africa, we ceased to subsidise exports to South Africa and we ceased to vote with South Africa in the United Nations, it’s only as recently as 1972 Liberal Governments had successively supported South Africa, Portugal, New Zealand, on all these racial and colonial questions. We changed all that and unfortunately the New Zealand Government changed at the same time and the Fraser Government, I applaud it for doing so, has continued its opposition to apartheid policies. The Menzies Government and other Liberal Governments did not. I believe that the world must consistently take action against South Africa and now at last, at last, the United States is accepting its moral leadership in this respect. President Carter is a man of courage and consistency and thank God the West is no longer contaminated by this collaboration or cover up in respect to the minority governments of Southern Africa.

Mr CAMPBELL, East Bentleigh: What would you do about Medibank and the private funds if you were returned to Government?

Mr WHITLAM: We will bring back Medibank as soon as one can. I would point out that the sooner we get Medibank back the less the taxpayers, as individuals and collectively, will have to pay for health services. For the last full year of Medibank, the one when it covered everybody in Australia, that is up to October last year for the 12 months up to then, it cost the taxpayers $51 million. In this year’s Budget $54 million is being spent to provide Medibank cover for onethird of the population. We are being ripped off by these chosen private health funds and the public shouldn’t cop it. It might take a little while to bring back complete Medibank but it will be a saving for taxpayers as a whole and it will be a saving for every individual taxpayer. It’s costing three times as much per head with the divided system as it did for universal cover through Medibank.

CANBERRA: If you were Prime Minister now, what stand would you have taken on the Victorian power dispute?

Mr WHITLAM: I would have helped to get the parties before the Arbitration Commission, that’s where it has been settled and you will notice that in none of the proceedings before the Arbitration Commission has the Federal Government been involved at all, it wasn’t allowed in and it didn’t ask to go in. All the noises that have been made by Mr Fraser and his colleagues on that power dispute were devoted to exacerbating the position, they had no relevant contribution to make and I can understand the Hamer Government in Victoria, thought it was a blessing in disguise, taking the land scandals in which they have all been engaged, off the front pages.

DAVID FLATMAN: Mr Whitlam, thank you very much for handling the viewers’ questions and now for a summary of today’s developments, we’ll cross back to George Negus in Canberra.

GEORGE NEGUS: What I am able to tell you is that whilst we were on air the Prime Minister’s press office has told us that, yes Mr Fraser did visit Yarralumla, it is officially confirmed, and also they were able to tell us earlier in the day he conferred with his colleagues and confirmed that he had indeed spoken to Mr Pearson, the Chief Electoral Officer. What they wouldn’t tell us were the subjects of the talks that Mr Fraser had with Sir John Kerr so we can only assume that if he is going to tell us at all it would be in the Parliament tomorrow and I think on that note Mr Whitlam we would thank you again.

page 2543

REDISTRIBUTION OF NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Debate resumed.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I announced in Brisbane last Monday evening that, because of the Federal redistribution which has adversely affected the seat of Griffith which I have represented since 1966, it is my intention to place my nomination with the Liberal Party in an endeavour to gain preselection for the new Federal seat of Fadden. The new seat of Fadden is named after a great Queenslander and former Prime Minister, the late Sir Arthur Fadden. It is situated between the southern outskirts of the city of Brisbane and the New South Wales border and between the back of the coastal strip and roughly the base of the Great Dividing Range. I look forward to representing the people of Fadden. Representing that electorate will provide a totally new lifestyle compared with that of representing a central city seat such as Griffith with its numerous and diversified problems.

I state that no parliamentarian could be richer in experience and memories than I am as a result of my association with the people dwelling in the 25 suburbs which in these remaining hours constitute the present electorate of Griffith. Those people have been good to me, and it is worth stating for the record that there is no Federal seat in Australia that has stuck by its member as Griffith has stuck by me. The seat was won from the ALP by 801 votes in 1966 and, as a result of the 1968 Federal redistribution, was subjected to some improvement. During the turbulent years that followed for the Liberal Party- a time when I saw several of my colleagues defeated- my majority was 1,600 in 1969, 350 in 1972, and 1,550 in 1974.

Honourable members might remember that 1974 was the year that the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, personally chose a candidate for the Labor Party for the purpose of taking the seat from me. Clem Jones’ 1974 campaign in Griffith is now history. He was described at the time as the best political candidate the Labor Party could offer Australia. No one gave me a chance of winning; yet the people of Griffith indicated at the ballot box that they felt that they were satisfied with their sitting member. The 1975 election was an easy one for sitting Liberal and National Party members. The people of Griffith, despite their basic political leanings have stuck fast during all those years. I seek leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard a paper prepared at my request by the Parliamentary Library. The paper indicates the volatility of the Australian electorate. I seek leave to incorporate also the letter which I lodged with the Distribution Commissioner on the redistribution of Griffith.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

The paper read as follows-

Parliament of Australia

Department of the Parliamentary Library

page 2544

LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE

Private 26.10.77

Member- D. Cameron

Question ( 1 ) How many House of Representatives seats have changed hands from one party to another in the last five elections? Which electorates were they and from which party was the change made?

  1. Over this period, how many seats have changed hands politically more than once?

Date of request 25.10.77.

Required by 26. 10.77.

1966 ELECTION

1 3 seats changed hands-

ALP lost 9 to the LP (Adelaide, Barton, Eden-Monaro, Grey, Griffith, Herbert, Hughes, Kingston, Lalor); 2 to the CP (Kennedy, Northern Territory); 1 to an independent (Batman- the sitting ALP Member stood as an independent and retained his seat); CP lost 1 to the ALP (Dawson).

1969 ELECTION

1 9 seats changed hands-

LP lost 16 to the ALP (Adelaide, Barton, Bowman, Eden-Monaro, Forrest, Franklin, Grey, Hughes, Kingston, Lalor, Maribyrnong, Penh, Robertson, St George, Sturt, Swan); 1 to the CP (Paterson); CP lost 1 to the ALP; Independent lost to the ALP (Batman).

1972 ELECTION

19 seats changed hands-

ALP lost 3 to the LP (Bendigo, Forrest, Stirling); 1 to the LCL (Stun); LP lost 1 1 to the ALP (Casey, Cook, Denison, Diamond Valley, Evans, Holt, La Trobe, Lilley, Macarthur, Mitchell, Phillip); 2 to the CP (Darling Downs, McMillan); CP lost 1 to the ALP (Hume); 1 to the LP(McPherson).

1974 ELECTION

9 seats changed hands-

ALP lost 2 to the LP (Lilley, Mitchell); 2 to the CP (Hume, Riverina); 1 to the NP (Wide Bay); LP lost 2 to the ALP (Henty, Isaacs); CP lost 2 to the ALP (Canning, Moore).

1975 ELECTION

30 seats changed hands-

ALP lost 26 to the LP (Barton, Bowman, Braddon, Brisbane, Canberra, Casey, Cook, Denison, Diamond Valley,

Eden-Monaro, Evans, Franklin, Henty, Holt, Isaacs, Kalgoorlie, Kingston, La Trobe, Macarthur, Macquarie, Perth, Phillip, St George, Swan, Tangney, Wilmot); 3 to the NCP (Capricornia, Dawson, Leichhardt); NCP lost 1 to the LP (McMillan). (*Please note that I have not taken into account the fact that John Gorton (Higgins) resigned from the Liberal Party and became an Independent in May 1975).

page 2544

BY-ELECTIONS

During this time there have been two by- elections which resulted in seats changing hands from one party to the other.

Adelaide 2; Barton 3; Batman 2; Bowman 2; Casey 2; Cook 2; Dawson 2; Denison 2; McMillan 2; Mitchell 2; Penh 2; Phillip 2; Riverina 2; St George 2; Stun 2; Swan 2; Diamond Valley 2; Eden-Monaro 3; Evans 2; Forrest 2; Franklin 2; Grey 2; Henty 2; Holt 2; Hughes 2; Hume 2; Isaacs 2; Kingston 3; Lalor 2; La Trobe 2; Lilley 2; Macarthur 2.

The letter read as follows-

Parliament of Australia

House of Representatives

Commonwealth Parliament Offices

Australian Government Centre 295 Ann Street

Brisbane, Qld4000

Tel 225 0122

Distribution Commissioners, Australian Electoral Office, Australian Government Centre, 295 Ann Street, Brisbane 4000

Dear Sirs,

I hereby lodge the strongest possible objection to your proposed emasculation of the Federal Division of Griffith.

Please do not read too much into The Courier-Mail’s editorial that said the Redistribution was fair. Only a few days before, that paper’s editorial praised the State Redistribution Commission for using the Brisbane River as a natural boundary. In this instance they were praising the new guidelines set by the same Parliament that directs you to take note of existing boundaries.

Section 19(2) of the Act dictates that you shall give due consideration, in relation to each proposed Division, to the following subsections:

  1. a ) community of interests within the Division, including economic, social and regional interests; and
  2. existing boundaries of Divisions and Sub-divisions.

Granted the allocation of another Seat to Queensland created special problems, but the effect of ‘planting’ that Seat has been over magnified in some other Federal Divisions.

Redistribution of Griffith should have been arrived at in the following manner.

  1. Basically, the existing boundaries should remain intact I accept as reasonable the slight alterations necessary to the Greenstones and Buranda Subdivisions, and Moreton’s Ekibin Subdivision, because of the South Eastern Freeway.

    1. In a sense, and only in a sense, can you justify crossing the river. We on the Southside regard the Southside as Southside and unless you are a Southsider, or the Courier-Mail editorial writer, you would not understand that. If you are determined to cross the river to achieve numerical balance, I reluctantly accept the transfer of the three subdivisions from the Division of Brisbane. That, believe me, is a real concession because, from a political point of view, that change is a handicap.
    2. Most other alterations are totally unnecessary. All that needs to be done to get the numbers within 300 of the proposed number of electors for Griffith is to retum Coorparoo and Greenslopes Subdivisions to Griffith and remove the Morningside Subdivision from the existing Griffith to existing Bowman. Naturally the Carina and Lytton Subdivisions you propose to be joined to Griffith would remain in Bowman.

As much as I respect the people of Morningside Subdivision after almost eleven years association, such a change would cause minimum dislocation and allow you to carry out the Redistribution in accordance with the guidelines. The numbers in Bowman are barely altered from what you proposed.

The suburbs of Murarrie, Morningside, Cannon Hill, and Hemmant- in existing Griffith and existing Bowmanrepresent a distinct community of interest. It is a meat industry orientated community. To regard it as one area is justifiable.

The Griffith I maintain you should have arrived at becomes an area containing two communities of interest. The inner Brisbane area and inner Southside suburbs. I trust you will recognise that my living in the district all my life, (indeed I am third generation m the area), and representing it in Parliament for eleven years gives me a greater comprehension of community of interest- economic and socialthan you would be expected to possess.

The original growth of Greenslopes, Coorparoo, Norman Park, Hawthorne and Bulimba Subdivisions took place in the same era. I find myself in frequent attendance these days at Golden Anniversary celebrations of Churches, Schools and organisations operating in these subdivisions. A great similarity exists even in the appearance of the homes. Even the tram lines, which were torn up by a disappointed opponent some years ago, were originally extended to the suburbs involved in the same period.

I have done a distribution of a letter in the Greenslopes and Coorparoo Subdivisions explaining what you propose and requesting the people of those areas to tell you what they think of your proposal for their future. Should you get in excess of 100 you should take great note of their attitude. In all my years as a parliamentarian there have only been two issues which have triggered off a deluge of correspondence in excess of 100 from the entire electorate. If, on this occasion you receive more than 100 replies from a quarter of the existing Griffith, it is an indication of grave public discontent towards your proposal.

Many are unaware that on 1974 election result figures the proposed Bowman is an ALP seat. If you have emasculated Griffith with a view to seeking an overall political balance, and many people are suggesting this, might I remind you that the present Griffith and the Griffith I propose is really a Labor Seat. Griffith will contain what can be fairly judged as a conglomerate of approximately Vh Labor State electorates, and less than 2 Liberal State Seats.

In the 1966,1969, 1972 and 1974 Federal elections, 99 per cent of political commentators predicted a Labor victory in Griffith. Indeed, amateur ‘bookies’ offered odds as high as 8 to 1 against me and professionals at 5 to 1. They learnt the hard way. The people of Griffith know just what they want despite the majority’s involvement in blue collar industries. You will not be accused of favouring a particular political party if you follow my submission.

To the contrary, you will be priased by all political persuasions.

The rationale behind the direction to take into account existing boundaries has two facets (a) stability for the people and (b) the need to preserve in the Parliament Members who survive and gain experience. It will probably surprise you to learn that a Member of the House of Representatives has five times more chance of losing his Seat in elections than the average of the fatality rate of the six State Legislative Assemblies. Only a relatively small percentage of M.H.R.’s ever qualify for the Parliamentary Pension which requires three elections and at least 8 years’ service.

In terms of service, in our present House of Representatives, consisting of 127 Members, there are only 26 who have served longer than I have served. Already three of them have announced their intention to retire at the next election, (Messrs Beazley, Nicholls and Dr Cairns).

After surviving in Griffith against all odds, what you propose virtually does what other factors have failed to achieve.

If what you nave done to Griffith were to prevail nationally (and remember recent High Court rulings necessitate future redistributions being done more frequently), Australia would end up with a national Parliament comprising Members with little experience.

Surely you must recognise that in the interests of Australia, it is essential that the already uncertain and difficult career of Federal Parliamentarians be not made even more uncertain by the intrusion of an even more devastating factor.

Little wonder gifted persons like yourselves, who have achieved the top in their chosen vocations, are not prepared to forsake security by offering their talents to the nation with the inherent risk of political life.

You may make the judgement that I have a vested interest in labouring this aspect. There is an element of truth in that. But for approximately 80 hours of almost every week since 1966 I have given much to my country and to the people I have been privileged to represent. Despite the popular view you too may hold about Federal Parliamentarians, I am more the rule than the exception.

If you conclude my opposition is dominated also by monetary gain let me inform you that after surviving five elections in Griffith I could retire on a Pension of approximately $13,000 per annum, take a position outside which allows me to finish at S.00 p.m., and which makes Saturdays and Sundays mine. I would end up financially better off than I am now and working half the present hours.

The direction by the Act that you consider existing boundaries seems to have escaped you. If you reconcile yourselves by concluding that a Member can nominate for some other Seat, let me assure you that the relationship one develops in an area is not easily built. In my case in Griffith, it is an association which commenced 37 years ago. It could not be rebuilt elsewhere if I were to live another 37 years. There is only one area where you can stand and say ‘I was born and raised here’. Even my late maternal grandfather represented much of the area in the 1920s in the now absorbed South Brisbane Town Council, and many streets in Griffith carry the names of both deceased and surviving forebears. Political parties choose and the people prefer candidates with a local identity. Some will match my identity but few will surpass it.

Attached is the 1000 signature result of a two-hour effort by eight people in just three shopping centres on Saturday morning, 27 August, when we turned to the people with petitions to seek their attitude to your proposal for Coorparoo and Greenslopes subdivisions.

In the name of the Electoral Act, decency and justice you have a very deep obligation to rethink the Redistribution of the Federal Seat of Griffith.

Yours sincerely

page 2546

D.M. CAMERON (M.P.)

Member for Griffith

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In summary, the paper prepared by the Parliamentary Library shows now, since the writs were issued in 1966, there have been 92 changes in the political allegiance of the seats in this House; 32 of the seats have changed their political representation more than once. I concede that there is a degree of luck in holding a marginal seat, but my experience has been that the harder I work the luckier I get.

Because of the actions of three men, namely the Distribution Commissioners for Queensland,

I am being forced to turn my back on Griffith because of the manner in which they have emasculated the boundaries. I have held the seat of Griffith for 1 1 years. When one considers that the average parliamentary life of a Federal parliamentarian is stated to be less than eight years, this is an unusual performance for a member who has won by such a tiny margin. It will interest members of the House of Representatives to learn that members of the lower houses of the six State legislative assemblies have a fivefold greater chance of surviving in their chambers than do members in the lower House of this Parliament. Those figures are based on records which go back to 1963. Survival here for 11 years is a long time. Indeed, it took nine years for the Sydney Harbour Bridge to be constructed. The construction of the Panama and Suez canals took only 10 years. Michelangelo, if he worked non-stop, would have completed painting the Sistine Chapel three times in that period.

The new seat of Fadden, which I hope to represent, has the capacity to give me a greater share of the vote than does my present seat of Griffith. Although it might be suggested that what I am about to say is simply a case of sour grapes, I assure people listening to the debate and those who may read Hansard that in my mind at this point in time my future in this place is secure, although I will be subjected to some inconvenience.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m. Mr DONALD CAMERON-Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had referred to the fact that my electorate had been emasculated by the three Queensland Commissioners, that I have been forced out of the electorate of Griffith and have nominated for the new seat of Fadden. My final sentence was an expression of hope that people would not disregard my comments simply as sour grapes. I hope that what I say will be understoodin the context that a new seat is available and that I stand more to lose than to gain from speaking tonight. When someone we know dies from cancer we say: ‘There but for the grace of God go I’. If in this Parliament honourable members do well in a redistribution they seal their lips, breathe a sigh of relief and say: There but for the grace of God go I’. In New South Wales the Commissioners responded to reasoned arguments” -

Mr Sullivan:

– No, they did not.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-People have a right to expect that Commissioners will at least take note of public comment, and I am pleased that the honourable member for Riverina who has been disadvantaged agrees with me, but this is not the case in Queensland. Their minds appear to have been closed except for the two alterations which were alluded by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). There was a slight change to put back what they unnecessarily removed from the electorate of Dawson, and there was a change of name of the new electorate from Gold Coast to McPherson. As the Chairman of the Distribution Commission and Queensland’s Chief Electoral Officer, Francis Coleman was, prior to his appointment from Canberra last year, the electoral officer for McPherson, one might argue on his behalf that he had a strange sentimental attachment to that name and wanted it for ever emblazoned in the lights of the Gold Coast. Beyond that the Commission did nothing. Section 19 sub-section 2 (g) of the original Act provides that the Commissioners shall give due consideration to ‘existing boundaries of divisions and sub-divisions’. Even when Mr Daly was the Minister for Administrative Services and altered the Act, he ensured that that very important provision was maintained. The only change in the Act in this regard was that that provision became section 19 (e) but the words, that is, the Commissioners shall give due consideration to ‘existing boundaries of divisions and sub-divisions’, remain. The Commissioners disregarded that provision.

Section 2 1 of the Act invites the public to make suggestions and to place before the Commission objections and it is the Commission’s task, supposedly, to consider those objections. I put in an objection and so did the people and, Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to this book which I have in front of me which represents the objections from the State of Queensland. That book is thicker than the books containing objections from the States of Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia.

Mr Viner:

-Put together.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Put together, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs reminds me. Obviously something was wrong. Its the thickest book of objectives against a redistribution in Australian history. More than half of all objections throughout Australia came from the people of Queensland, and over one-quarter of all the objections for Australia came from one-fifth of one of the 127 electorates. A small pocket of people screamed in dismay and disappointment, but the Commissioners brushed them aside with a contemptuous 29-word sentence. That is all the attention they paid to half the objections in Queensland- 29 lousy words. I said previously that it appears as if their minds had been made up.

I received today an unsolicited letter which is representative of many. I leave the writer anonymous. I read this extract from the letter:

It would certainly seem that as far as the Commissioners were concerned the wishes of the electors were not so important as the directions I feel they had received and which were not necessarily in parallel with those of individual Commissioners.

That comment is not unlike the words which came from the hps of the honourable member for Lilley earlier this evening. His words make interesting reading. Indeed they come from the lips of a man without an axe to grind. He still has his Lilley, but he was so moved by the stories in wide circulation in Queensland- I see the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) nodding his head in agreement- that he drew the attention of this place to what has happened in our State.

As the honourable member for Griffith, I turned what may have been regarded in 1966 as a seat of clay into a seat of gold for the Liberal Party. It stood by me five times. The Commissioners may have taken Griffith from me, but they have not taken my integrity. If ever I reach the stage in this place that I have to silence my hps when I see rotten apples in the case, I would rather be out of it because I would no longer possess the integrity that a member of this place should have.

I suggest- after the next election I will work towards this goal- that the Commonwealth Electoral Act should be altered. As the honourable member for Lilley said, we should never again allow the third Commissioner, who is a government appointee, to be a public servant because pubhc servants, like everybody else, have a great deal of interest in their own careers and opportunities for promotion. Never again, if I have my way, will a bunch of anonymous men- three of them- sitting in their soft chairs behind closed doors be able to treat the people with the contempt that has been displayed, principally by the Chairman of Commissioners in Queensland, Mr Coleman, to those hundreds of people in those two subdivisions who reacted in a spontaneous way and wrote in protesting at what the Commissioners were doing. Their words were not heeded. Those hundreds of people may as well have saved their stamps, their envelopes and their time in writing.

Every puppy has his day. That is not meant to be an idle threat. I assure the House that whilst I face a new future in a new seat, what has been done to Griffith is an event that should not be allowed to be repeated anywhere in this country, whether it is done to a Labor man or a Liberal man. In short, the Commissioners removed from the seat two subdivisions which made it impossible for me to win it, put them in another seat, took two subdivisions out of that seat and put them in Griffith. They set out to turn it into a safe seat for another party. In my opinion they did it simply to make themselves look good guys and fair guys.

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise in this debate to oppose specifically the distribution commissioners’ report in relation to New South Wales. I do so in great sorrow. I must talk about the way in which this redistribution has been effected, and about the electoral laws and the way in which they have been implemented by the distribution commissioners. I do not wish to speak about the Commonwealth Electoral Act, except to say that it is apparent from the exercise in relation to New South Wales that it is completely deficient.

Many of the comments which have come from the other side of the House have come from persons who, like me, have been disadvantaged personally as a result of the recommendations in the reports which we are now debating. That is inevitable. Whenever this House of this Parliament considers redistribution proposals, the inevitable spread of population and the static number of seats in this House will mean that certain members will be gravely disadvantaged. I have been gravely disadvantaged. However, I hope that I can speak about the deficiencies in the mechanisms available, the deficiencies in this legislation, and most importantly the many grave questions which hang over the whole way in which the commissioners in New South Wales have carried out their brief to redistribute the electorates of New South Wales. Very grave questions are raised as to the propriety of the way that was done.

The commissioners for New South Wales were appointed on 19 April 1977. A little over four months later, on 23 August this year, the commissioners gave notice of the proposed divisions for the State of New South Wales. I believe that, if the mechanisms set out in the Commonwealth Electoral Act are not to be a mockery, the commissioners ought to have thought long and hard before they come out with their notice of proposed divisions and only in the most extreme circumstances and only after great consideration ought they to depart from their initial suggestions. I regret that in New South Wales major departures have been made without any explanation whatsoever from the commissioners. This calls into question, I believe most sincerely, the diligence and, indeed, the honesty with which they have discharged their commission.

I started out by saying that inevitably, with the spread of population and the pattern of human settlement in our great metropolitan areas, there has been an invanable pattern in the large cities of Australia that members occupying seats closest to the central business districts and closest to the centres of town are the most vulnerable in a redistribution. But what we expect is that the commissioners have given proper consideration when they come out with notice of their proposed divisions, so that they do not depart dramatically and drastically from that notice when they come out with their final report. In New South Wales, in relation to the central metropolitan area of Sydney they have done that in a way that is so seriously at variance with their original suggestions that there is a stink about the whole system. After four months’ consideration the Commissioners complied with the charge that they are given in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which is to publish notice of the proposed divisions at every Post Office in the proposed divisions. There is a reason for that. It is so that persons can see into what electoral division it is proposed they should move or indeed in which electoral division they may now be.

I think it is a commonly accepted fact by honourable members on both sides of this House that if there has been a major change in land use, if there has been some resumption of land or if some land formerly settled becomes recreation land or something like that, an adjustment of a boundary may be appropriate. Indeed, a reordering of the boundaries of subdivisions may be appropriate. It has not been unknown for whole subdivisions to be shifted after the Distribution Commissioners have given notice of their original proposal.

In the central area of Sydney the Distribution Commissioners have drastically altered their originally proposed divisions. They have shifted a majority of electors in a whole central Sydney municipality from a proposed division into a new division. They have given no notice whatsoever of that to any of the persons affected by it, and of course no person, no institution and no local government authority has had the opportunity to protest against the intention which I firmly believe they held in the back of their minds the whole time. I believe a dishonest notice was given under the terms of section 20 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That can be the only conclusion that follows from such a dramatic variation.

In New South Wales we were all faced with drastically changed ground rules. The number of electorates was being reduced from 45 to 43. This meant that the number of electors in every electorate would increase hugely at a time, of course, when the population is increasing and at a time when, as every honourable member knows, the demands on the responsibilities of members of Parliament to their constituents are also increasing. The Commissioners should have thought long and hard about this. The quota for New South Wales was set at substantially more than 71,000 persons. Every one of the electorates affected- I am referring to Sydney, Grayndler, Lowe and Evans- was about 10,000 under quota, so it was a big cut-up. It was a major recommittal. It was not a matter of aligning one subdivision with another. We are as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) reminded the House today, working in an area where huge numbers of the population are not citizens or are not registered to vote and are therefore not counted for the purposes of this whole exercise. We are talking about the most densely populated, the most deprived areas in the inner metropolitan area of Sydney. The Commissioners have disposed of their change of mind in these terms: ‘We have made certain changes to our published proposals’ and now there is ‘a more equitable adjustment of community interest among the electors involved’. They refer there to the seats of Lowe, Grayndler and Evans. That is nonsense. The Press, which again has never discharged the responsibilities which Australians should impose upon members of the fourth estate in this country, has never looked at the comments made to the Commissioners about their original distribution proposals.

There has been an acceptance that, because a former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) published a lengthy objection, it was therefore a worthwhile and a well thought out objection. It is a nonsensical objection. It is an objection of which the law clerk in the firm which drafted it for him ought to be ashamed. It commences with an incorrect citation of the Electoral Act. It refers to the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918-1973. In fact, it has been amended on several occasions since 1973 and, in any event, the former Attorney-General changed the form of citation. The Act that was passed by this Parliament in 1974 as a result of the great double dissolution and the historic Joint Sitting of the Houses of Parliament set out the new matters which are to be considered in the distribution of electorates. The right honourable member for Lowe has set out an objection which I commend to honourable members for examination. It is a disgrace; it is a circular argument that, because of its length, is supposed to have some internal consistency. In fact it does not.

I want to hark back to the point that the distribution commissioners say that they have more equitably adjusted community of interest. That is the criterion addressed in section 19 (2), paragraph (a)- ‘community of interests within the Division, including economic, social and regional interests’. There the right honourable member for Lowe made several points. He talked about there being no economic, social or regional interests in common between the parts of land which it was proposed to join to the former parts of the division of Lowe. The mere assertion of that ought to be backed up with some facts. Yet this is what he calls in aid: He says that the major economic markets in the area are the shopping centre of Burwood and the Flemington markets. He says that they draw their support as commercial centres solely from the subdivisions which lie to their north and which have been placed in the division of Sydney. If he had supported that with a statement or a market research survey conducted by the Chamber of Commerce in Burwood or by the State Produce Authority that conducts the Flemington markets, there might have been some basis to it. But there is none. It is a dishonest statement. The Remington markets are populated and patronised by persons who would’ never be able to live in the more wealthy precincts of the former division of Lowe. The right honourable member for Lowe ought to know that and so must the distribution commissioners.

When talking about economic and social interests, the right honourable member for Lowe put in aid that the Hume Highway marked a natural boundary. Later on he went on to describe it as a physical feature, as though it were a huge gorge or a freeway instead of a street that is punctuated at 100-yard intervals by intersections, traffic lights and massive traffic flows in every direction. It cannot in any way be described as a physical feature. But most interestingly he referred to the proposed local government amalgamations in New South Wales as being some authority for the proposition that those local government authorities that lie to the north of the Hume Highway have something in common because it had been proposed by the Boundaries Commission in New South Wales that they ought to be amalgamated. When he asserts that that is the case, he overlooks the fact that a massive part of the municipality of Strathfield lies south of the Hume Highway. The most comic objection of the right honourable member for Lowe was what he said in relation to the criterion set down in paragraph (b) of section 19(2) of the Act relating to means of communication and travel within the division. He said: . . . there are very few transport services running from the area South of the Hume Highway . . . and . . . to travel by train from Strathfield to Campsie Stations requires a journey via Redfern or Central Stations.

Well, I suppose, as the proverbial managing clerk used to say to the articled clerk: ‘If you want to go down two blocks and travel via La Perouse on the tram, it is going to take you three hours ‘. It is a nonsense !

The right honourable member has nominated in his objections the prime commercial areas of his former electorate. Burwood is one of the biggest areas. Everybody in Sydney knows the Westfield Shopping Centre as a focus of commercial attention for persons from a very wide area. There is a direct bus service, run by the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales, from Burwood to Campsie. It runs at 10- minute intervals and it is routes Nos 492 and 494. I do not expect those who formerly transported themselves only in Daimler motor vehicles, sitting up in the back seat to elevate their height, to be aware of that. But the government bus services are run as an integrated operation by the Pubhc Transport Commission of New South Wales.

There is a stink about this. It becomes a farce that there ought to be a provision in the Act that boundaries be posted in post offices when half a municipality- 30,000 people- and I spoke to the Mayor of Marrickville today- sees this area go into the seat of Sydney. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les MacMahon), who is a hard workmg member, will now have responsibility for the most disadvantaged areas in the State of New South Wales. That has been statistically proven. I refer to Leichhardt, Marrickville, the centre of Sydney and south Sydney. The statistical bias operating against the Labor Party which Malcolm Mackerras, a prominent psephologist, has noted at a figure of about 2 per cent has been restored. Labor will get 90 per of the vote in Sydney, but we will have a safe Liberal seat for a tired, weary old man who ought to be discredited by bis own party.

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

Debate interrupted.

page 2550

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PRESENT BILLS

The Clerk:

– Notices have been received from the Minister representing the Minister for Education that at the next sitting he will present a States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and a States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill.

page 2550

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Debate resumed.

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

– I join this debate for different reasons from those of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam). In fact, they are different from those of all members of the Opposition and, in most cases, supporters of the Government. I say at the outset, that I have notning to say against the work done by the distribution commissioners. To put it bluntly, if we give a group of men a stupid task we must expect a stupid answer. The commissioners were given a stupid task in 1974-75. They were given a stupid task this year. Nothing will change that situation. The arguments tonight have been put forward by those who see political variations in the boundaries drawn by the commissioners. After all, what is this game but a political game? If we cannot accept the decision of the umpire we should not play in the match. My position has not changed with regard to the redistribution proposals put forward either by the Labor Party or on this occasion. I quote from Hansard ‘in 1975 when I said:

I have a great responsibility on this occasion that outweighs any of my personal considerations. I must voice, on behalf of the people of my electorate, the strongest possible objection to the redistribution proposals. I am speaking on this occasion with almost absolute support from my people. I have practically every single member of the electorate of Riverina on my side. They are appalled at, they are against, and they have expressed their disgust, at the redistribution proposals.

In 1974 1 won the seat of Riverina from a Labor Minister.

Mr Bourchier:

– Who was he again?

Mr SULLIVAN:

– That was the Minister for Immigration, Mr Al Grassby. I do not consider the task of winning the new seat of Riverina in 1977 to be as daunting as the task in 1974. 1 have also spoken out strongly in the Press against these proposals. I do not think I will be saying anything new tonight, but I wish to say a few words about this catch cry ‘one vote, one value ‘. I hope that I will speak the truth about that catch cry and that honourable members will listen to it. It will be their decision, their choice, whether they are prepared to live with it.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) in speaking in this debate earlier this afternoon talked about one vote one value and mentioned the United States as being an example of where that catch cry is practised. I refer him to the record. It is clearly stated in a hand book from Congress in the Umted States of America that the state of South Dakota has an electorate population of 333,000. New York has an electorate population of 468,000. It is 40 per cent larger. The United States also recognises that there are States which cannot adequately be represented under the normal system. They are called ‘at large’ States. The variance between those at large States is interesting. In Alaska, for example, the electorate population is 302,173. The District of Columbia has a total electorate population of 756,510 electors. That is more than 100 per cent variation. At that stage this afternoon I was forced to withdraw the remark I passed about the Leader of the Opposition, that he was lying.

The principle of one vote one value in this country must be considered at a Federal level. When we consider these points in the debate it is necessary that the truth is told. Let me take as examples the States of New South Wales and Tasmania. People should be aware that the population of New South Wales is 4,800,000 and the population of Tasmania is 402,804. There are 43 divisions in New South Wales and 5 divisions in Tasmania. There are 3,059,402 electors in New South Wales and 262,009 electors in Tasmania. In New South Wales the quota for a Federal electorate is 71,149 and the quota in Tasmania is 52,402. It seems to me at the outset from looking at the quotas that there is a discrepancy in the principle of one vote one value. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) had the temerity to suggest that this situation was written into the Constitution.

Let us look at more of the figures to see exactly how the situation works agamst people in the more populous States- I have taken New South Wales as an example-and how it works to the tremendous disadvantage of people living in country areas. There are ten senators from New South Wales and ten senators from Tasmania. In the State Parliament in New South Wales there are 99 representatives in the lower House and 60 in the upper House. In Tasmania there are 35 in the lower House and 19 in the upper House. I want to come now to the revenue sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States under the federalism arrangements which have ensured that the States have been given the greatest amounts of money in the history of Federation. This year New South Wales received $ 1,327.4m and Tasmania received $2 14.6m. In local government tax sharing New South Wales received $60.3m and Tasmania received $5.3m. I mention at this stage that the Minister for Health in the New South Wales State Government has more money in his portfolio than there is in the total budget in the State of Tasmania. For that total budget in the State of Tasmania there are 54 members of Parliament administering less money than the Minister for Health in New South Wales administers.

In Tasmania there is a total area of 68,331 square kilometres. In the Riverina, the electorate which I am to continue to represent, there is an area of 251,777 square kilometres, Four Tasmanias, in area, would fit comfortably into the seat of Riverina. In that area in Tasmania there is a total of 69 State and Federal representatives. The figures are quite frightening. The ratio of the total number of State and Federal members to the number of people in Tasmania is one to 5,800. So every 5,800 people in Tasmania have a State or Federal member of parliament. In New South Wales the figure is one member for every 22,000 people.

Mr King:

– They call that ‘one vote one value ‘.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– That is called ‘one vote one value’. It is interesting to speculate on why both major parties accept this situation. It must be very obvious to anyone who thinks about the matter even in a shallow way. In terms of Federal representation, if one wants to put it on that level, Tasmanians have a Federal member of the House of Representatives, or senator, for every 24,000 people. In New South Wales the ratio is one for every 60,000. So much for one vote, one value.

Why does this situation remain and why have the two major parties done nothing about it? That is where the truth must come out. It is reasonable to suggest that if one can convince 262,000 voters one can win 10 seats in the Senate and five in the House of Representatives. Let me go on record as saying that that is why nothing has been done about the Tasmanian situationalthough I am not suggesting for one moment that Tasmanians deserve any less representation than does anyone else. What I am suggesting is that the two major parties have not the political courage to recognise that the other States need more representation, that those who are suffering as a result are the people who live in country areas.

We heard the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen) say tonight that, as a result of this proposal, five miles would separate parts of his electorate. That is the most incredible statement I have heard in a debate of this nature. He went on to say that there was a lack of community of interest, in that those 5 miles brought in a new suburb. I suggest that the honourable member come to some of the larger electorates, come to my electorate. He would find not just two or three schools but in excess of 200, and that a distance of 5 miles would be considered a normal walking distance; that one would be lucky in most cases if there were even a road. It is impossible seriously to come into this House and suggest that what is now apparent to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has not in fact been apparent for a long time to everyone in the country areas. The country people will be disfranchised, will lose their representation.

It is interesting to note that the Premier of New South Wales proposes to re-arrange the seats in the Upper House of that State, reducing their number from 60 to 45 and that most of that loss will be felt in the country areas. This is a ridiculous situation. We stand here and argue small political points because we have not the courage to consider what representation should be all about.

The time lost in travelling through a country electorate cannot be regained by giving a member an aeroplane or any other form of rapid communication. In this new seat of Riverina, as any honourable member from a large electorate would know, time spent in travelling is time completely wasted. One cannot represent voters adequately when one spends up to 30 weeks of working time behind the wheel of a car or sitting in an aircraft That inadequacy must be redressed by extending a degree of tolerance, and we have asked that a tolerance of 20 per cent, for what it does, be accepted. It is not a political move, such as we have seen on the part of Labor supporters to win votes through a variation in the boundaries of electorates. It is designed merely to provide representation to those who live outside major capital cities. However, it is quite apparent that the two principal political parties do not intend to agree to it.

The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) has not spoken in this debate. In my opinion he has not done so because he believes in the principle that he must get big or he will be put out. That is not a good enough reason to enable one to speak adequately on behalf of country people. I do not believe that in this chamber we should suggest that the philosophy or policy of a party is all that is required to get a member in this House; that any member from any seat comes in here purely to be a number, and participate in votes. Unfortunately, there are many honourable members sitting on both sides of the House now who are no more than just numbers when divisions are called. What people have to say on issues is what representation is really about. What chance has a member in a country electorate spread over hundreds of thousands of square kilometres to be able to get the idea, the consensus, of what his people want put in this chamber. Surely that is what representation is all about I was appalled tonight when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) got off this subject while speaking and tried, for cheap political motives, to attract the Aboriginal vote in Kalgoorlie. Then he switched to the Maltese and Cypriot vote. He is very clever at trying to arrange the vote of the minority groups in this country but he misses the main point. He did this before the 1975 election quite adequately when he was seen once with the Vietnamese orphans. He was never seen with them again. Recently he took his grandson to see the Australian cricketers, purely to get votes.

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-In answer to some of the points made by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) one must point out that the relationship of the Tasmanian membership of this Parliament to the actual total number is established in the Constitution. If the honourable member would give us a guarantee that he would work for an amendment of the Constitution and change it in some way, it would be helpful but he has not done that Let me say that I am sympathetic to some of the points made by the honourable member about representative government. I am a firm believer in representative government and on the whole, after 22 years in this Parliament and a long time in public life, I am prepared to support the view that in most instances there should be more members rather than less. The representatives of the people must face up directly to the great forces which direct the community, the media, the great and powerful commercial and industrial institutions and so on. I am with the honourable member in that regard. I think there should be greater accessibility but the facts of life as we face them here today are conditioned by the failure of the people pf Australia in 1967 to amend the Constitution with regard to the relationship between the Senate and the House of Representatives so far as numbers go.

I do not blame the honourable member for Riverina or the National Country Party because all the major parties campaigned for it. The Democratic Labor Party campaigned against us and defeated us, to out shame. My own view is that we should amend the Constitution in some way or other. I have canvassed all the members of this Parliament several times. I know that a lot of people in this Parliament are on my side about the matter but nothing happens. The honourable member for Riverina talked about people coming here and being independent, individuals, their own men. Ever since this recent distribution was announced and it was realised that they were going to lose seats, National Country Party members nave been weeping away silently in the corners of Parliament and everywhere else about it, but they have fronted up here today behind the Liberal Party because they are just plain satellites. If they were dinkum parliamentarians they would have stood up long ago and taken steps to change this situation. Whilst I sympathise with those members who have been disadvantaged by this redistribution, I think it is totally ridiculous that the number of members of the House of Representatives is related to the Senate. I have done my best as an individual to change this by encouraging members to do something about it but they have not done so. They are the puppets of the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Malcolm Fraser). They have turned this institution into his private parliament. The election date, 10 December, is the finest example of this. Dozens of honourable members on the other side are going like lambs to the slaughter. They are the sort of people who, if one saw them at the French Revolution being taken in the tumbrils to the guillotine and a wheel came off, would get out and help the executioner put it back on. That is why they are in a fix.

What is the practical problem? I believe it is possible to draw up the electoral boundaries so that on the day they are drawn they contain almost equal numbers of electors, I believe that perhaps we should redraw the electoral boundaries after every election at some fixed time before the next election. I believe that we ought to establish a relationship between the number of members of this House and the actual population or the voting population. My suggestion was that we should hold a simple constitutional referendum to provide that there should be one member of the House of Representatives for every 100,000 people. We could resolve the problem with the Northern Territory and so on by relating the membership to the number of people in the smallest electorate. I do not see any practical problem with that.

I raise a matter that relates to my electorate. I represent one of the industrial areas of Australia. It is a small, highly congested electorate of 1 1 square miles or, I think, 30 square kilometres. It is not the smallest electorate but it is one of the smallest.

Mr Hodgman:

-Do you believe that there should be only two members of this House from Tasmania?

Mr BRYANT:

– I do not mind having a lot of Tasmanians coming here. In the last Parliament we had a very fine group of them. The situation has deteriorated a good deal, but that will change on 10 December. Whilst this redistribution is better than most, there is less differential between city seats and country seats than there used to be. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the view that we ought to have a differential that is related to distances or anything else because in this Parliament we make the decisions for the nation in the votes on the floor of the House and the numbers in Australian politics are so finely balanced that when one changes the numbers one changes the vote here. I will give some examples.

According to a schedule I have in front of me, the electorate of Wills has 73,995 voters. But the electorate has been substantially enlarged. The only other figures I have are the census figures of those actually over 18 years of age. These figures were given to me a while back. In the present electorate- the one I am representing tonightthere are 58,000 people on the electoral roll. The Government Whip is making signs to me to finish off. If he gives me three more minutes I will wind it up and the Government will have to resign, as it is doing. Over 58,000 voters over 18 years of age are now registered for the electorate. There are actually 78,000 people over 18 years of age in the electorate. I should think that about 15,000 of the additional 20,000 people would be non-naturalised people who arein the process of being naturalised. I can foresee that, before many months have passed, the electorate of Wills will be well over the quota.

On the general question of the difficulty of representation, my friends from the country areas will be well aware that I have travelled throughout this country as much as most of them and I recognise some of their difficulties. I was born in the Western Districts of Victoria. But we represent people. As I have said, my electorate is one of the most congested in this country. It is also one of the most complex. It has one of Australia ‘s greatest concentrations of migrants.

Mr Bourchier:

– It has the worst representative.

Mr BRYANT:

– It has the best possible representation. People from all over the world have poured into Brunswick and Coburg so that they can get decent representation. The fact of the matter is that the complex social and industrial situation in the electorate of Wills is as difficult and challenging to handle as anything that one can get from the sandhills and spinifex of the Mallee. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier)- the temporary honourable member for Bendigo-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr J. L. Armitage)

AYES: 54

NOES: 26

Majority…….. 28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member knows that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Amendment negatived.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question now is that the original motion be agreed to.

Mr Scholes:

– I wish to raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know of no other way of raising this matter. I understand that today the Senate agreed that the name of the electorate of Lawson in New South Wales be altered to Macquarie. What is the status of that amendment in the Senate if the House of Representatives agrees to the New South Wales distribution with a different name for one of the electorates?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– In answer to the point of order, the Senate is the master of its own business.

Question put

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 25

Majority……. 31

AYES

NOES

In Division

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2555

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF VICTORIAN ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Consideration resumed from 26 October, on motion by Mr Macphee:

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of Victoria into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs L. J. Abbott, J. E. Mitchell and E. L. Richardson, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into Divisions, in their Report laid before the House of Representatives on 25 October 1977, and that the names of the Divisions suggested in the Report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted.

Mr FitzPATRICK:
Darling

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) said he would represent that division after the next election. I sympathise with him because of the way in which he had to vote tonight but my generosity does not extend as far as conceding that point.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2555

REDISTRIBUTION OF QUEENSLAND ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Consideration resumed from 26 October, on motion by Mr Macphee:

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of Queensland into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs F. J. Coleman, J. M. Serisier and R. M. Seymour, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into Divisions, in their Report laid before the House of Representatives on 18 October 1977, and that the names of the Divisions suggested in the Report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2555

REDISTRIBUTION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Consideration resumed from 26 October, on motion by Mr Macphee:

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of South Australia into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs A. J. Walsh, G. H. C. Kennedy and H. D. Winterbottom, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into Divisions, in their Report laid before the House of Representatives on 18 October 1977, and that the names of the Divisions suggested in the Report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2555

REDISTRIBUTION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Debate resumed from 26 October, on motion by Mr Macphee:

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of Western Australia into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs B. S. Nicholls, J. F. Morgan and A. E. Tonks, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into Divisions, in their

Report laid before the House of Representatives on 18 October 1977, and that the names of the Divisions suggested in the Report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I indicate that the Opposition will be opposing this motion because we think that the redistribution in Western Australia is unfair and that it does not represent a proper allocation of divisions.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I believe that the redistribution proposal for Western Australia is, to begin with, totally unfair to the National Country Party which in that State gets sufficient votes to merit its having one seat. The drawing of the boundaries in that State has meant that a significant rural seat which could have been designed on a community of interest basis is now lost to that Party. The redistribution in the metropolitan areas is what I might call the philosophy of Senator Withers which is how to immobilise the Labor vote by confining it to a very few super-safe areas while at the same time ehminating the National Country Party. I do not suggest that the commissioners accepted the philosophy of Senator Withers but the redistribution almost makes it appear as if they did. I believe the redistribution is very unfair. I remember Mr Speaker complaining about the redistribution which took place when the Australian Labor Party Government was in office. When the votes in Western Australia split 50-50 the seats went 50-50.

It is a clear calculation of the Liberal Party that no matter what happens it will get eight out of ten seats, on 45 per cent of the votes. I think that is the way the redistribution works. I believe it is not a good redistribution either in terms of reflecting the will of the electorate of Western Australia or of taking into account community of interest. Therefore, I believe the motion should be defeated.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– I believe the redistribution as proposed for Victoria represents a gross injustice to the electoral and political rights of all Victorians.

Mr Morris:

– We have just voted in favour of Victoria.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The redistribution we are considering at the moment is that of Western Australia. I suggest that any comment being made ought to be made about Western Australia.

Mr King:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like your guidance on this matter. I understand that earlier we had a cognate debate. That debate was gagged. I objected very strongly to the gag and opposed it. Since then we have been putting through these distributions State by State. It was my understanding that once we had completed a cognate debate there was no further discussion on it when it came to putting the individual questions. Mr Deputy Speaker, you allowed the honourable member for Fremantle to speak to the issue of redistribution of electoral divisions in Western Australia. Why was he permitted to do that when, in actual fact, you are now ruling that we cannot speak to the previous vote that was taken for Victoria? I further ask, would you allow the honourable member for Mallee to speak on this issue?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-In spite of the assistance that I am getting from many honourable members, the answer to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wimmera is that in a strict sense, of course, a cognate debate is an arrangement of the House which assists debate on legislation when there is a basic principle involved in the subject matters of the legislation before the House. When a cognate debate is held and the individual questions are put, there is always an opportunity for honourable members to comment on the individual questions. Normally that does not happen because honourable members have said what they desire to say during the cognate debate. The reason that the honourable member for Fremantle and the honourable member for Corio spoke about the Western Australian situation at this point of time is that the motion before the House deals with the redistribution in Western Australia. The redistribution for Victoria, South Australia and other States have been agreed to by the House. Therefore, the debate on those States is completed. The matter of the gagging of the cognate debate is not within the province of the Chair, except that the chair must put the question. The motion before the House concerns the redistribution in Western Australia.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

– I should like to challenge what the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has said in relation to the distribution in Western Australia. I am not certain exactly what way he would have had the boundaries drawn to preserve this so-called community of interests, particularly bearing in mind that the existing boundaries were also a requirement that the commissioners ought to take into consideration. The story that has been put around by the Labor Party in Western Australia is that Canning and Moore were rural seats and that, therefore, it would be inappropriate for suburbs such as Lockbridge to be included within them. I suggest that the dormitory suburbs that are to be included in Canning and Moore are not very different from those that are already within them. In any case, either before or after the redistribution, only about 20 per cent of the people in those electorates have any direct connection with the land.

Question put.

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

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 23

Majority……. 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2556

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to seek your guidance. When we were dealing with the New South Wales redistribution, we voted on the change of the name of one of the electoral divisions. Honourable members on this side of the House thought that you had declared the vote in favour of the ayes; I understand you declared it in favour of the noes. Because of that misunderstanding we did not ask for a division. I am asking whether we can have that question recommitted so that a vote can be taken.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise on a point of procedure, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following what we understood to be a vote on the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart), a question was put which was rejected on the voices. There was a division in respect of the principal question, and the principal question related to the electoral maps as they were presented but with one alteration, namely, changing the name ‘Lawson’ to ‘Macquarie’. We divided on the question relating to the maps showing the electoral boundaries as amended, including the name ‘Macquarie’. Is that the division which the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) wants recommitted, or does he seek to vote on the first question?

Mr SCHOLES:

-The first question, with respect to changing the name of the division from ‘Grayndler to ‘Lang’.

Mr Sinclair:

– I am sorry. The Government would not be opposed to the Opposition having that question recommitted if the procedures of the House will permit it. But I might point out that the subsequent question has already been carried; we have already divided on that. I do not quite see how we can reconstitute the proceedings of the House in those circumstances. Whilst the Government would not be opposed to accommodating the honourable gentleman’s request, I just do not see how it is physically practical.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I seek leave to move a motion which would allow the question of the New South Wales redistribution to be recommitted. We will not seek to divide the House on the subsequent question.

Mr Sinclair:

– For the sake of convenience I suggest that, instead of moving a motion of that sort, the honourable member should move a motion in terms such as these: ‘Within the maps as presented for New South Wales, the name of the division of Grayndler be changed to the division of Lang’. If the honourable member wants to put that one question in isolation without resubmitting the whole matter, we would be happy to do it that way. Would the honourable member like me to draft the motion?

Mr SCHOLES:

-I will move it in that way.

Mr Sinclair:

– We will not support it; we will oppose it.

Mr SCHOLES:

-That is all right.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The motion I would propose would be in these terms:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a vote being taken on renaming, in the maps agreed to, the division of Grayndler as the division of Lang.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-A simple motion would be that the House vary the motion already agreed to in respect of the redistribution in New South Wales to change the name of the division of Grayndler to Lang. It might be best if a motion in simple terms such as that were moved. The House is the master of its own business and a motion such as that put to the House and agreed to or defeated could finalise the matter.

Mr Sinclair:

– The Clerk has suggested a slightly different form of wording which still reaches the desired conclusion. Subject to the Opposition’s agreement, we on this side would be happy to have a division on a motion in the form suggested by the Clerk.

Mr Bryant:

– While we are waiting, I point out that the 1968 report recommended that the name of the division of Grayndler be changed.

Mr Yates:

– Is it wise for us to attempt to move a motion of this sort after the House has already divided? Would it be possible or more correct for any change to be made in another place and brought to us rather than that we try to countermand a decision already taken?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I point out to the honourable member for Holt that we have not yet had a division. That is what the Opposition is trying to achieve so that it can have its proposal recorded. As I have pointed out on many occasions, the House is the master of its own business. The House, acting within the Standing Orders on a reasonable basis, can decide its own business. A suggested form of words for the motion is:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent a motion being moved that the following words be added to the motion agreed to for the redistribution of the State of New South Wales, into Electoral Divisions, viz.: “and the name ‘Lang’ be substituted for ‘Grayndler’ “.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent a motion being moved that the following words be added to the motion agreed to for the redistribution of the State of New South Wales, into Electoral Divisions, viz.: “and the name ‘Lang’ be substituted for ‘Grayndler* “.

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise to take a point of order. A motion for the suspension of Standing Orders must be carried by an absolute majority. A division must be taken.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member for Mackellar waits a moment, we will get to the point he has raised. A division will be taken. If it is defeated, the question of an absolute majority does not arise. The question now is that the motion moved -

Mr Wentworth:

– I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The point of order raised by the honourable member has been answered. The motion before the House is:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent a motion being moved that the following words be added to the motion agreed to for the redistribution of the State of New South Wales, into Electoral Divisions, viz.: “and the name ‘Lang’ be substituted for Grayndler’ “.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I move:

That the following words be added to the motion agreed to for the redistribution of the State of New South Wales into Electoral Divisions, viz.: “and the name ‘Lang’ be substituted for ‘Grayndler’ “.

Mr Wentworth:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion for the suspension of Standing Orders was not carried by an absolute majority. Until that has been done you cannot put the other question.

Mr Sinclair:

– On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion was carried without dissent. In those circumstances I would suggest that it must have been carried by an absolute majority. I therefore suggest that you put the question on the substantive motion so that we can get on with the business of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The answer given by the Leader of the House is the answer that I gave to the honourable member for Mackellar the first time that he raised the point of order about the absolute majority.

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 45

Majority…… 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2558

GOVERNOR-GENERAL AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)There was no dissenting voice when I put the question that the Standing Orders be suspended to allow the recommittal of a motion that had already been passed by the House. To save time in having the matter recommitted, the House agreed to a particular action being taken. The honourable member for Mackellar can shake his head as much as he likes, but they are the facts. The motion was put in the knowledge that it had to be passed with an absolute majority. When it was put, no one objected to the decision that was made. The number of honourable members who were here, the vote that had been cast previously and the vote that was cast afterwards make it obvious that there was an absolute majority on that occasion. In the circumstances, no ruling was given. It was accepted by the House that the matter should be handled in that way. I have already said, and I repeat, that the House is the master of its own business. The Chair does not dictate; it only guides. If any member of the House or sufficient members to fulfil the requirements of the Standing Orders had moved any motion in. regard to the action that was being taken, then the House itself could have made the judgment. In my opinion the House made that judgment. The Leader of the House explained the situation in regard to the matter of time, which is of some importance. That is the position at this moment. I call the Leader of the House, on a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Wentworth:

– I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– You are wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I am not interested at the moment. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr Sinclair:

-May I point out that the vote on the last division was 45 ayes and 29 noes. Part of the substance of the point of order raised by the honourable member for Mackellar was that there might well have been less than an absolute majority in the House at the time the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders was put. In fact the numbers 45 and 29 amount to 74, which is more than an absolute majority of this House. There was no dissenting voice. I would suggest that in those circumstances the matter was entirely in order and therefore we should proceed to our next item of business.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am sorry -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

MrWentworth-I -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat. If he keeps disobeying the Chair I will take action against him.

Mr Wentworth:

– I just say that the Chair has been wrong -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. I think the point of order raised by the Leader of the House answers the question. I think it is obvious and sensible.

Mr Wentworth:

– It does not answer it. Your ruling is wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– This does not establish a precedent. There is no danger. The Clerk has read out the next item of business. I call the honourable member for KingsfordSmith.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– This legislation is designed to increase the salary of the Governor-General-elect or, it might be better to say, the occupant of the office of Governor-General in future to the sum of $37,000. I think it is important to look at the office of Governor-General in relation to the Constitution. It is significant that the Constitution itself, as far back as the original Bill of 1900 did provide for a salary; but it took some 74 years before that salary was adjusted, and it is being adjusted again now within a space of three years. I think it is also worth mentioning that a salary of $37,000 as proposed is in no way related to the expenses of the holder of the office. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) reveals that the cost of the office in toto for what one would call day to day expenses is $500,000. In addition, there are the very substantial costs associated with transport, furnishings and the like. What the Opposition is emphasising is that in no way will the salary be spent by the occupant of the office. It is a net gain; it is non-taxable and there is no question of his having to spend any part of it.

The principles that were announced at the time when this matter was last before the House one would hope would still apply. But we must look at the matter in the light of what is happening in Australia today, on a constitutional basis. The Opposition is firmly of the view that the people of Australia should judge very quickly whether they are prepared to accept the Constitution as it now exists or whether there should be a new Constitution. In the course of that judgment it could well be appropriate for them to decide that they do not need the office of GovernorGeneral. Accordingly, what we are saying from the Oppositions ‘s point of view is this: It is inappropriate for this Parliament, particularly in its dying stages, to be suggesting a salary which is in no way related to the cost of the office. To suggest it now could bind a subsequent Parliament, and indeed it would do so. It is more important to submit to the Australian people a convention as to the type of Constitution they may want. In the course of asking people to determine this matter we would be submitting that there is no need for the office of Governor-General. In modern democracies we can run democracy with the people and the government elected by the people. They are the two factors. Such a situation applies in Great Britain at present. There is no impediment to the powers of the Parliament in Great Britain. Those powers are not interfered with in any way by the Monarch. Unfortunately, in Australia the rules of the Constitution allow for an intrusion. That appears to be the situation. Any intrusion into the people’s rights means that the democratic principles are not sustained.

There has been a lot of argument about this matter for some time. The sustaining of the democratic principles has been on the basis that the occupant of the office has always acceded to the wishes of a Prime Minister. To that extent the onus is on the Prime Minister. That has not happened in recent years although it happened again last evening. The fact that the Prime Minister might have given wrong advice in no way detracts from the democratic principles that he has to be answerable for that advice. We are saying that the constitutional conventions in Australia at present are not in our opinion representative of the wishes of the people. It will be announced in the forthcoming election campaignit is most important- that we want to encourage a people’s convention, which would be held we think in 1978 or 1979, to determine a new constitution for Australia. We would be putting forcibly to the people at that time that there is no need for a position such as that of GovernorGeneral. In other words, we can pass laws in this Parliament and have them certified without having any other so-called higher authority to suggest that perhaps they should not be passed.

One can see the problems we have in Australia at present when one looks at the Constitution and sees in it provisions, for example, that a law can be withheld for the Monarch’s consent. One can see how ridiculous it would be if the law was the Appropriation Bills. It means that the Monarch could disallow that law at any time within 12 months. It would bring Austraha to a standstill if we passed Appropriation Bills and, 1 1 months after we had approved of the Budget allocations, the legislation was disallowed by the Queen. That is the present situation. The Constitution also provides that the office of GovernorGeneral can intrude and suggest amendments to any Bill. It is a very important office. It relates to the future of democracy in this country. Every time a decision is made on a personal basis or deemed to be the prerogative of the occupant it is in our view an interference with the normal democratic rights that should prevail in any democracy. Austraha should have the same rights, powers and privileges as now apply in the United Kingdom. They do not apply here.

We cannot continue to sustain the present position. It is a severe negation of a democratic constitution for Australia. If we have powers outside the powers of the Parliament it reduces our Constitution to an absurdity as it is at present. We are mindful of the fact that while we need some form of knowledge that the Executive of a government can rule, we do not need anybody else to support the decisions of that Executive. We need a Parliament to evidence the type of legislation that has, in fact, been passed. We can readily establish to the courts of the land that any law passed has been properly passed when it has been assented to by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. We need no other evidence of that fact. We can reduce the Constitution as it now applies to a modern concept in which every aspect of democracy is put to the people and they agree on it. They control it. The Parliament is theirs and the Government is beholden to them. We would not have any other force indicating that there are some divine rights or a higher authority that can in any way interfere with the workings of a parliament or the life of a government. Unfortunately, that has not been the situation in the last few years.

Speeches have been made outside this nation indicating that the occupant of the office might well exercise a discretion that would be against the advice of the Executive. We do not agree with that. We are also rnindful of other expressions being made overseas as to what sort of tariff barriers we might apply. We do not think those expressions should be made by an occupant of that office. What we are saying is that this legislation provides the Australian people with an excellent opportunity to have a look not only at this office but also at every aspect of democratic government in Australia. What better way is there to allow democracy to prevail than to organise conventions of the Australian people and to submit to them a set of rules for their approval, for their negation or for their variation? If they wish to retain an occupant of that office they may do so, but it is not good enough in modern times just to go along with the old established position and to say that it will not be changed and that we will continue to add on to a monetary figure which is just deemed to be money in the bank.

People all over Australia are meeting and wanting to know when they will be able to take part in conventions to determine what sort of constitution they ought to have. In our view, if a solid case is made out on a democratic principle there is no justification at all for an occupant of this office to exercise any powers relating to this Parliament. In other words, governments can fail without anybody sacking them. They would fail in this Parliament. They would fail perhaps because of refusals of Supply. That is not a normal democratic process. It does not require anybody else to say in a particularly bad moment: ‘I wish to dismiss the Cabinet or the Prime Minister’. As honourable members know, our Constitution makes no provision for Cabinets and Prime Ministers. It is very defective in regard to the operations that should prevail.

The Opposition is opposing this legislation in regard to the office, not in regard to a personality. We see no need to retain this office as it is now occupied, because the occupant can interfere with the rights of a Parliament or the tenure of a government and can decide whether Ministers can continue to hold office. Any intrusion or action is a denial of democratic rights. Because of those matters we are saying that we do not approve of this legislation. We oppose it and make the point that it can be reviewed at a later date. No personal hardship to the new incumbent would be involved when one realises that there are no expenses to be paid out of that salary. We are also mindful of the fact that one of the principles announced in 1974 was that the occupant would make no financial gain from the office that he or she held. We notice at the moment that somebody is talking about issuing at least three volumes of memoirs which will be sold commercially. We are aware of these matters but we do not think the office should have been accepted by the occupant on that basis. We make that very clear.

At the present time in this country we are striving desperately to establish a national identity. A lot of irrelevant actions are being perpetrated on the basis that there is a need for intervention by someone such as a Governor-General. At the present time we have a very large number of people of different ethnic backgrounds coming to this country. Those migrants are interested in seeking a new identity. It is against Australia’s interests to be harking back to the colonial days when we were deemed to be subservient to some other government well away from us here. We are still in the ridiculous situation whereby the British Parliament could rescind our Constitution tomorrow and we could do nothing about it. For those reasons it is very urgent and essential that the Australian people address their minds to the need for a new constitution. It has to be drastically altered. The people alone should have the capacity to do that and it should be subject to their consent and approval.

If one looks at modern-day democracies such as Sweden, Japan or Switzerland one can find plenty of examples of where there is no outside intervention. Even Britain, with an unwritten constitution, has been able to reach that position by continually reducing the powers of the monarch. If an attempt had been made in Great Britain to exercise powers such as have been exercised here in recent years the British Parliament would have passed such further laws as would have even prevented the Monarch from remaining on the throne, or would have interfered with the rights of succession. We have no such powers here. What we want is a system that is democratic and workable, that is beholden only to the people of Australia. It is for them that we seek such a new system, because democracy in Australia is about those two fundamental issues, government and people. No third party should be involved. Accordingly, we oppose the Bill, reiterating that it has nothing to do with the running or day to day expenses of the office. If honourable members will refer to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) at page 104, they will find that the resent provision made for those expenses is 1.5m, so there need be no reduction in the Governor-General’s standard of living. I might add that at the forthcoming election the Australian Labor Party will be proposing a people’s convention to draw a new Constitution. We oppose the Bill.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-This legislation is not complex. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has indicated that his Party will oppose it for particular reasons. The Government obviously will ensure that it passes. It is a fact of history that the salary paid to a Governor-General is not increased during the period for which he is in office. Therefore, the only opportunity presented to a government to ensure that more reasonable remuneration is paid is when a change of office holder is being contemplated.

I wish to pay my respects to a man who has, I believe, fulfilled his office with a great degree of responsibility. The present Governor-General is one who has understood the importance of the Australian Constitution, something that cannot be said for a great many members of the Labor Party in this country and this Parliament.

The Constitution which we in Australia have accepted over a period of 76 years involves the Queen, her representative in Australia, the Senate and the House of Representatives in legislative acts on behalf of the people generally. The present Governor-General protected that Constitution and, as a result, was subjected to more derision than probably any other individual has suffered in the history of this country. Millions of citizens will never forget the actions of the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, and his colleagues, and in particular the statement in which he called upon his supporters to maintain their rage and express it against the GovernorGeneral, who had acted so responsibly and courageously in the interests of the country. The Governor-General had exercised great judgment in an extremely difficult situation, one which had been exacerbated by a Prime Minister prepared to ride roughshod over a Constitution that had been accorded due respect for 76 years. The Governor-General had ensured a continuation of parliamentary democracy. His action was vindicated in the subsequent election by an overwhelming majority of Australians, and that support spoke for itself.

I respect the right of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, and of other Australians, to promote discussion on the form the Australian Constitution might take in future years. It is worth mentioning that the Governor-General has himself encouraged discussion of the role of his office and its relationship to the Constitution. All I would like to say at this stage about that proposition is that if we ever accept and adopt another Constitution in this nation, I hope sincerely that that Constitution will provide a similar system of checks and balance to control the likes of Prime Minister Whitlam who may foist themselves upon parliaments and the people of Australia at some future date. The experience of October and November 1975 is, I believe, burned into the minds of Australians, and rightly so. The fact is that a Prime Minister, who is supposed to hold a responsible position on behalf of Australians, who takes an oath of office, who sits in this Parliament on behalf of Australians, was prepared to reject the Constitution, to ride roughshod over that Constitution for his own short term political gains.

We have in Australia a system which provides for a Parliament to operate. The Senate has the same rights as the House of Representatives in all respects other than the amendment of financial Bills. The Senate has an equal right with the House of Representatives to reject a financial Bill. The Senate was rejecting a financial Bill. The Senate has the authority to reject a financial Bill if it so chooses. The fact that a Prime Minister was prepared not to accept the situation which is in the Constitution, and was prepared to exercise every means that he could find available to him to govern without Supply, to find any situation to perpetuate his own time in office, proves that the Constitution of Australia is still a very workable document for all Australians. There were checks and balances within that system which the Governor-General had the courage to exercise. As a result of that we have a maintenance of parliamentary democracy in this country. All Australians owe the Governor-General a great debt for that It is almost impossible to contemplate the system that might be operating in Australia today, late in 1977, had there not been that restraint exercised over Prime Minister Whitlam in November 1975. All Australians will remember, and if a new Constitution is ever being contemplated, as has been suggested by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) and others, I would hope sincerely that similar checks and balances will operate in that Constitution, as operate in the present Constitution. The lessons of October and November 1975, when a Prime Minister was prepared to flout the Constitution and throw the Constitution out the window for his own ends must never be allowed to happen again in this country. I am not concerned with the arguments that are being put forward by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith. I am concerned with the role that Sir John Kerr played in preserving the Australian Constitution as it exists now and as it existed in late 1 975. The GovernorGeneral acted courageously and responsibly in an intensely difficult situation and deserves, and

I believe has, the respect of responsible Australians. On my own behalf, on behalf of the National Country Party and, I am sure, on behalf of the entire Government and most Australians, certainly responsible Australians, I want to place on record our appreciation of a great Australian.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Several points made by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) I think ought to be answered for the record. The Senate had not rejected the legislation in 1975. This is a most disgraceful exercise, to raise the Governor-General’s salary-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 22

Majority……. 30

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: 53

NOES: 22

Majority……. 31

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a correction to a statement made by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). During the course of his speech on this issue the honourable member said that we on this side of the House when in government had refused to acknowledge the Senate’s refusal of Supply. Nothing of the sort happened.

The Senate had not made a decision. No vote had been taken. It was not even sure that it should.

Mr Lusher:

– I said that the Senate had the right to refuse.

Mr BRYANT:

– We do not mind the fair play of debate in this place, but if people are going to talk about recent history they should at least get their facts straight, and that was a downright misstatement.

Mr Lusher:

– I said that the Senate had the right.

Mr BRYANT:

-You said that the Senate did refuse it.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I will not detain the House for more than one minute. I had not meant to intervene but, having heard the remarks of the honourable member for Kingsford -Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), which were a thinly disguised advocacy of republicanism, I must say that nobody who believes in the authority of the Queen will ever be able to vote for the Australian Labor Party.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2564

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2564

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL

Notice of Presentation

The Clerk:

– Notice has been received from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that at the next sitting he will present a Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill.

page 2564

JUDICIARY (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion byMrMacphee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-This Bill relates to His Honour Mr Justice Fox who has been appointed AmbassadoratLarge to assist the nation in respect of matters relating to nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear problems. As honourable members know, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) applauded the appointment of Mr

Justice Fox. Mr Justice Fox is of eminent background and well fitted to carry out those tasks. This Bill provides that his position as a judge will be maintained as will his service and salary. All his rights and privileges will be maintained should he return to his office as a judge of the court in the Australian Capital Territory. We support the Bill to that extent.

One point that I think is worthy of comment is that His Honour is a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, which is a very busy court. It is thought that the Territory should have at least four judges. At persent only one judge is available to carry out the enormous work load that now exists in the Australian Capital Territory. His Honour Mr Justice Connor is likely to have a breakdown, in our opinion, unless he gets some help. His Honour Mr Justice Blackburn has a year’s leave due to him, and he is taking that leave. We would have thought that the Government would have been aware of the acute problem that exists in the Australian Capital Territory. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) would be entitled to do something about this matter, but there is a convention that judges are not appointed once dissolution of Parliament has been announced. Accordingly, nothing can be done by way of intermediary relief until after the writs are returned following the election. It is a disappointment to the people in the Australian Capital Territory to think that this matter was not considered on that basis when the appointment of Mr Justice Fox was announced. We support the appointment and we do not oppose the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2564

ADJOURNMENT

General Election- Qantas Publication-Australian Labor Party- Mr Gordon Albert Kelso-Airport at HMAS Nirimba- Macarthur Growth Centre-Sheltered Workshop in Corio Electorate

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

Parliamentarians are in the throes of preparing themselves for an election on 10 December next. Despite the ovemhehning amount of money that is anticipated will be spent by the opponents of Labor, the Labor Party feels that it will win the confidence of the people of Austraha which will enable it to take over the treasury bench of the nation after that election. I point out one of the great difficulties that the Labor Party has to surmount. The National Times of 17 October last set out on page 28 the amount of money spent by the Liberal and National Country Parties on television and radio advertising during the 1975 elections. The Labor Party was able to spend only $808,442 which enabled it to purchase 249 hours of time on radio and television. The Liberal and National Country Parties spent $ 1 ,2 1 9,7 1 3 and occupied 4 1 4 hours on radio and television.

In the same newspaper the broadcasting times allocated by 13 television stations throughout the nation are listed. In my view, a very unfair allocation of television time to the major political parties- that is the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National Country parties- is shown. Television station TCN and other stations in Sydney broadcast the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) between 7.15 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. The latest time at which the Prime Minister’s speech was broadcast was 8.30 p.m. The times allocated to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) by some of these television stations were 1 1 p.m., 1 1.58 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. Television stations CBN and CWN Orange and MTN Griffith did not show the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. At Newcastle his speech was broadcast at 9.30 p.m. It was not shown by WIN Wollongong. Television station AMV Albury broadcast the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at 10.10 p.m. The Rockhampton and Maryborough stations did not show it. At Tamworth and Lismore the time was 10.30 p.m. and at Wagga Wagga it was 10.2 p.m.

All my adult life I have respected to some degree but hated the power of money. My party advisers inform me that in the Hunter electorate, which is one of the truest Labor electorates in Austraha and which is the electorate that I have the honour to represent, the National Country Party of Australia spent $5,000 during the 1975 election campaign. It is an electorate which that Party could not even hope to win, because of the loyalty of my constituents to the true principles of Labor.

Mr Armitage:

– And a good member.

Mr JAMES:

-The honourable member for Chifley says: ‘A good member’. That is a matter for the people to decide. My party, the Labor Party, spent only $1,400. Despite the avalanche of money which swept into the Hunter electorate, the National Country Party was able to persuade only 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent of my voters to change their allegiance from the Labor Party. Many of those electors have regretted their switch during the term of the Fraser Government.

I know that it would be impossible to convince the National Country Party of this, but many people in my electorate believe that the National Country Party should make a contribution of the amount or half the amount it spent last time and the Labor Party should make a contribution of the amount it spent, if there were no contest, and that the money should be donated to some worthwhile organisation such as the Boy Scouts movement which is in dire financial straits in my electorate. That organisation plays an important part in the formation of the characters of our future citizens. In the little town of Aberdare outside Cessnock the Scout hall recently was burnt down. Dedicated citizens with a great love for character building are trying to raise sufficient money to rebuild -

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I wish to raise three separate matters tonight, each briefly. The first relates to the publication called Detours which has been put out by Qantas Airways Ltd as a free aid to young people in relation to travel. It has come under notice and has been criticised by various churchmen. I have started to receive letters about this publication from concerned constituents. When it is perused it is found to contain references which I do not wish to go into in detail in the House, for obvious reasons. There are references to sexual matters and to drugs. I admit that those references appear to be only small portions of the publication, but they have caused real concern to persons who worry about the values of our community. They want to know why a government instrumentality is expending money on these matters. I have taken up the matter personally with the Minister for Transport and discussed it with him. I am advised that the Minister has called for a careful investigation. I hope that a proper and reasonable solution can be obtained so that offensive matter will not appear in these types of publications in future. I am quite sure that if other airlines sought to put some of this material into booklets that were circulated in Australia there would be even more comment about the matter. The second point I want to raise -

Mr Morris:

– I take a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, is it in order for the honourable member for St George to so refer to a document

Eublished by a government authority when the onourable member for Denison has told me that he personally rang Sir Lenox Hewitt to congratulate him on the quality of the document and the fact that Qantas is now getting with it?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)There is no substance to the point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr NEIL:

– The second matter I wish to raise is a separate matter. It relates to the incredible announcement yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) that if he is returned to office- a wild delusion that could happen only by some outrageous mischance- the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) would probably be the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence. I point out to the House the near impossibility of any one man handling those two heavy portfolios. It shows the totally unrealistic attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and the totally unrealistic attitude of the honourable member for Oxley. The ministry of defence now consists of parts of three or four departments. It was conglomerated some years ago. It is a massive job. It nearly broke the back of a respected former Defence Minister who is now an ambassador overseas. It is a very heavy

Siortfolio and it is a tribute to the present Minister or Defence (Mr Killen) that he has handled it so well.

The ministry of Foreign Affairs requires that Minister to be out of the country for lengthy periods. How any Minister could combine the two portfolios, I really cannot imagine. One recalls the problems that the Leader of the Opposition had when he was Prime Minister and also Minister for Foreign Affairs. He totally neglected the economy with disastrous results for Australia. If any Minister should become the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence there would be disastrous results for this country.

The final matter with which I deal is entirely personal. I want to pay a tribute to a person I have known for a few years, Mr Gordon Albert Kelso, who is a good, solid Labor man and who would support tie Labor Party. This week, Mr Kelso will celebrate his fiftieth year as a newsvendor at the corner of King and Elizabeth Streets in Sydney. I went to law school with his son. Mr Kelso is an admirable man. He served in the Second World War, his only break from his job as newsvendor. He started there as a boy and eventually he bought the franchise in the 1950s. He is a fifth generation Australian of direct male line. In fact, his brother was a former Australian and British Empire lightweight boxing champion and Mr Kelso used to be his second. I want to pay a small tribute to this gentleman who has seen a passing parade of many famous identities in Sydney.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I rise tonight to deal with the question of pressures that have been brought to bear on both the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) and the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and, of course, their two departments, to allow the airport at HMAS Nirimba to become a general purpose airport. Of course, this pressure has been coming from aero clubs and the like for some considerable time. The position as I understand it is that whilst it was receiving some encouragement from the Department of Transport the proposal was strongly opposed by the Department of Defence on defence grounds because HMAS Nirimba is, of course, a defence establishment. But this has not deterred the aero clubs from pursuing their cause. I was very perturbed to read a letter I received only this week when I came back to Canberra from the Schofields Flying Club Ltd inviting me to be among the official guests at the Schofields Silver Jubilee air show to be held as an official part of the Silver Jubilee commemorative celebrations at Schofields aerodrome- that is the HMAS Nirimba defence establishmenton the weekend of 12 and 13 November 1977. What shocked me most of all was this unity ticket. The letter states:

The Minister for Defence, the Rt Hon. D. J. Killen, Esq., M.P., has kindly consented to be the Patron of the Air Show and will be presiding at the opening ceremony on Saturday morning. Also, the Rt Hon. P. J. Nixon, Esq., M.P., the Minister for Transport, is Co-Patron of the Air Show and will be present on the Sunday to make the official presentations.

Further on, the letter states:

The Air Show has been likened to a ‘mini-Farnborough’ or ‘mini-Oshkosh’. Although mainly oriented towards light and general aviation, emphasis is also being given to all other facets of aviation.

In other words, there is or there would appear to be a unity ticket between the two Ministers with the object of converting to a general aviation airport this aerodrome at a defence establishment at which the movement of private planes has been very carefully kept down to a low level because of defence requirements. A high level of aircraft movements would interfere not only with the Schofields Aerodrome itself but also would interfere with air traffic at HMAS Nirimba and also with movements from the Royal Australian Air Force Base at Richmond. As I have said, this letter appears to be undoubtedly a unity ticket between the two Ministers to allow the Schofields airport to be used for general aviation purposes or, in other words, to become another Bankstown Airport. This is a quite ludicrous situation. Schofields borders on Blacktown, Mt Druitt, Marayong, Riverston and Doonside. All of these areas have a high population density. Of course, we know that the aviation position at Bankstown is such that it is already dangerous to the general public. The situation would be compounded if a general purpose airport were established in the Schofields area. There would be greater danger to the general public.

I have already sent urgent telegrams to both Ministers asking them to take action immediately to ensure that their acceptance of this invitation as co-patrons does not mean that this airport is to be used for general aviation purposes.

Mr BAUME:
Macanhur

– I want to raise tonight a serious problem affecting many constituents of the electorate of Macarthur whose land has been designated under the Macarthur growth centre proposals. I want to say at the outset that I have a great deal of respect for the capacity, hard work and integrity of the Macarthur Development Board and I regard what they are endeavouring to do in that area to be certainly visionary and I hope ultimately successful. However, there is a serious problem that has emerged as a result of the designation of a very large area of land to the south of Campbelltown which will not be used for many years to come.

As of this week it appears that Campbelltown and Appin, which are two sections of the growth centre, will no longer be in the Macarthur electorate. Nevertheless there are sections of Camden which remain in Macarthur and which will be affected by this growth centre. As a result I feel not only a specific responsibility for the people in the new Macarthur electorate but also for many of those in the old Macarthur electorate who are being disadvantaged so seriously by this situation.

The fact is that in 1974 an Act was passed when the Australian Labor Party took the view that money grew on trees. It then started to chop the trees down. It took the view that anything could be achieved with money, including buying votes. Unfortunately the money ran out even under the Hayden Budget, with the result that the grandiose plans for purchasing with Federal money large tracts of land could not be proceeded with. Nevertheless the present Government last year provided $5m to buy designated land from people who were in distress. I thank the Government for the kindness it showed to those people at that time. In the current year the Federal Government offered $ 1 for every $2 provided by the State Government to finance the growth centre. That offer was rejected out of hand by the Wran Government for petty and, I would say, disgraceful political purposes. I hope that those people who are unable to sell their land will recognise the reason for it. The fact is that now there are many people who are tied into the ownership of that land and who are unable to sell it but who at the same time are obliged to pay very high council rates upon it.

The people on the development board for the Macarthur growth centre are very concerned about the situation. They are endeavouring to establish appropriate ways of allowing people either to dispose of their land or to keep those small portions of their land which would be nondesignated. I commend the board for its endeavour. What concerns me greatly is the fact that the State Government has been crying poor and accusing the Federal Government on this matter. But at the same time it has been selling at undisclosed prices large tracts of industrial land in that area. As I understand it, that land has brought in very substantial amounts of revenue. That money has not been returned to the Macarthur growth centre; it has gone into the State coffers. It has gone into the State’s Consolidated Revenue. At the same time, the State of New South Wales has been bleating to the Federal Government to provide more finance. That is basically dishonest.

What is even more dishonest is the fact that the State Government refuses to reveal to the people of the area the price obtained for the land that has been sold to various industries, including the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd- I am overjoyed to see this happening- or the terms on which the land has been leased, if it has not been sold, because it appears to me that in order to attract people to this outstandingly good area the State has been prepared to enter mto deals which are non-commercial. As a result the people whose land has been proclaimed are not getting a fair deal because the Macarthur development board is not getting a decent return and as a result the money is not being paid out to the people who are in distress. It is disgraceful that those people should suffer as a result not of the

Federal Government’s failure to offer funds- the funds it offered have been rejected by the Statebut of the State’s secret deals with major industrialists, and as a result of the State not revealing the basic price and the basic returns which it is getting on that land.

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

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– It is ironic to hear the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) making a plea for honesty. I would have thought that he would set an example in this place, but when he talks about disgraceful political acts, let us just shift our attention a little to the south of New South Wales.

Mr Baume:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I could not understand what the honourable member for Shortland said, as usual, but I got the feeling that what he said was insulting. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! At one stage points of order were taken on inferences. I hope we never get to the point where they are taken on a feeling. I get a feeling on many occasions but honourable members continue with their speeches.

Mr MORRIS:

-I hope that the honourable member for Macarthur does not have that feeling again. If he pleases, I ask him to shift his attention to the southern section of the continent and read some of the reports resulting from the Victorian land inquiry. If he does so he will see where the dishonesty and the corruption lies. His own fellow members of the Liberal Party are involved in diverting vast sums of money away from proper public utilisation, away from providing homes for those people who are needy and who do not have homes.

Mr Baume:

– Be honest enough to name a fellow member of mine in this place who is involved.

Mr MORRIS:

-I know that the honourable member cannot understand but I hope he can read. The money was diverted away from homes for needy persons for one simple reason and that was to obstruct the activities of the Whitlam Government in implementing a program of housing for people who could not afford their own homes.

I suspect that later this evening the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) will raise a matter relating to the Qantas Airways Ltd publication Detour. In his defence I should say that yesterday he raised this matter with me in my capacity, I took it at the time, as the shadow Minister for Transport. He asked me had I seen this publication Detour and I replied promptly that I had not. He said: ‘I went to the trouble to ring Sir Lenox Hewitt and congratulate him on the quality’- 1 think that was the word, but it is near enough to it-‘ and tell him that at last Qantas was getting with it and now is recognising a needy section of the market’. I raise that in defence of the honourable member for Denison- I think what I have said is accurateand in rebuttal, on his behalf, of the remarks made earlier by the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil). I am sorry that there is such division amongst honourable members opposite on the very back bench but this is indicative of the general attitude of honourable members opposite towards successful publicly owned transport enterprises. Qantas Airways Ltd managed to make a profit last year. Its annual report has been deliberately delayed by the Treasury, no doubt because this can have an impact upon its liquidity position in the current year. That, I understand, is the position.

There is criticism within the Government party room, at Young Liberal Council and State Liberal Council meetings about the successful operations of Trans-Australia Airlines. It seems to me that the Government party would rather have those successful publicly owned transport enterprises in the hands of foreign corporations and I wish they would stand up and declare their attitude clearly. The backbiting, the division and the argument that goes on among Government party members operates only to the detriment of fine, efficient, well-managed and successful Australian publicly owned transport enterprises. If they want to argue about something they should turn instead to the dirty land deals in Victoria. Let us see some honesty on the part of Liberal members opposite and let us put an end to the corruption. Quite clearly, from the reports coming forward from that inquiry, money has gone to the Liberal Party of Victoria in consideration of decisions made by members of the Government. That is where honourable members opposite ought to be directing their attention in order to achieve a much higher level of honesty so that the people we represent will get the services and facilities they pay for through their taxes in the various revenue forms that come to the Government.

Last evening we heard the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) tell us that the cost of local telephone calls is to rise to 15 cents. He put a case to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) and the

Minister, by bis silence, obviously acquiesces in the suggestion that local telephone calls should be raised to 15 cents a call.

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

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-On 4 October this year in this House I moved:

That this House censures the honourable member for Oxley for his recent economically subversive public statements which, contrary to the accepted traditions of the Parliament, speculated upon the standing and strength of the Australian dollar upon which the economy of this nation is based, encouraged the likelihood of a major capital outflow from Australia as the direct result of his persistent predictions of an impending devaluation and as a result sought to damage Australia’s economic and financial credibility in the eyes of the world at a rime when the honourable member for Oxley knew or ought to have known that Australia was in the process of negotiating for overseas loans.

As a result of the suspension of Standing Orders that censure motion against the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) was carried overwhelrningly, the vote being 67 votes in favour and only 27 Labor votes against. So the honourable member for Oxley was censured for making statements which were ‘economically subversive’, and I am quoting from the resolution. In the debate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), who is a well known litigant in this country, sought to act as counsel for defence for the honourable member for Oxley and on page 1558 of Hansard of 4 October 1977 the Leader of the Opposition, referring to certain economic matters in October last year, is reported as having said:

The honourable member for Oxley ( Mr Hayden ) gave the prescription which would avoid the mischief which this Government was bringing about. It was going on again in August and September of this year. Once again the honourable member for Oxley gave the prescription which would cure the mischief.

He talked as though the honourable member for Oxley were a doctor. As I will demonstrate in a few moments, within the last 24 hours the Leader of the Opposition has acted as though he were the Medical Board because he has just deregistered the doctor. A little later in that speech, the Leader of the Opposition said -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I point out to the honourable member for Denison that, during the adjournment debate, he cannot revive a previous debate in this House. I was waiting to see whether he introduced any new subject matter. He is continuing to quote from speeches already made in a debate. In doing so, he is out of order. I would suggest that he introduce some further subject

Mr HODGMAN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your advice. I intended to quote two other passages in which the Leader of the Opposition praised the honourable member for Oxley and said what a great man he was on economic matters; how he had saved the country previously; how the country owed him a debt of honour; and how the country could look forward to taking his advice for many years to come. Of course it came as a very great surprise to Australia and, no doubt, the rest of the world when last night the Leader of the Opposition, in answer to a direct question, which incidentally emanated from a Tasmanian, proclaimed that the doctor, ‘Dr’ Hayden, the doctor of economic recovery in this country had been deregistered and had been banished from economic matters. Heaven forbid, but the man whom this House convicted of economic subversion- we know what those words mean, Mr Deputy Speaker- is actually to be put in charge of the defence of this country. I find it inconceivable that any man condemned by this House for economic subversion could be regarded as a fit or proper person -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I would point out to the honourable member for Denison the situation which developed in which he withdrew certain words that he used.

Mr HODGMAN:

-They are not the words.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member for Denison would follow the course of his speech he would note an inference in that speech that is going very close to the comments that he was asked to withdraw. I would suggest to the honourable member that he not proceed along that same line.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your ruling, of course, but I am quoting from the motion which the House passed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member can quote from the motion as much as he likes, but he continued with a certain line and a certain comment. He is continuing with the earlier comment that he was asked to withdraw. I would suggest to him that he not follow that line.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I accept that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have not called the honourable member for Oxley an ‘economic traitor’, words which I withdrew on a previous occasion. I used the words ‘economic subversion’. I simply make the point that it seems inconceivable to me that any man who has been censured by this House in accordance with the words of that motion, which is indeed public property, could even be considered to be put in charge of the defence of this country. It might be an indication that, on this matter, the Leader of the Opposition has recognised the wisdom of the decision of the House of 4 October to censure the honourable member for Oxley. I suggest that there is a clear and demonstrable link between the Parliament’s censure of the honourable member for Oxley and his removal from the post of economic spokesman for the Labor Party. Quite clearly in the forthcoming election campaign he cannot speak with any authority on economic matters, because his leader has publicly indicated that if Labor came to power the honourable member for Oxley would not be permitted to hold an economic post.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I raise a matter with which the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), who represents the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), might be able to deal. Recently a sheltered workshop was completed in my electorate, at the cost of $500,000. An application was made to the Government for assistance in the form of a grant to purchase equipment for that workshop. The letter which was received by the committee representing that workshop indicated that the Government was sorry but it would not consider providing an equipment grant for this completed sheltered workshop, which is urgently needed and which the Commonwealth agrees is needed, until after 30 June 1979. The Government will not allow the workshop even to be registered until that time. The workshop cannot spend the money which it has available now to buy equipment; otherwise it will become ineligible for subsidy at that time. I think it is a matter of considerable seriousness.

The workshop was completed. It was completed with assistance from grants through the State Government. The Commonwealth claims ignorance of the proposal. I am certain that the Commonwealth participated in that construction program. If the workshop is left to gather cobwebs between now and June 1979, 1 think it would be to the eternal disgrace of this Government or any other government. I ask the Minister whether he would take up this matter with his colleague because it is a matter of seriousness which promises to disadvantage people who could be employed in that sheltered workshop but who would have to sit around doing nothing for two years until the Department decides that it might register the workshop.

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

– I will refer the matter to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). No doubt she will send the reply to the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 2. 1 5 p.m.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2571

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Department of Veterans’ Affairs: Staff Establishment (Question No. 896)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the staff establishment of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, including those areas since transferred to the Department, as at 13 December 1975, 30 June 1976 and 30 April 1977.
  2. What positions are presently unfilled within the Department.
  3. Of the present vacancies, how long is it since they were last filled in a non-acting capacity.
  4. What positions within the Department have been abolished or amalgamated since 13 December 1975.
  5. How many positions have not been filled as a result of natural wastage.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. Departmental staffing information is collected at the end of each month for management purposes. The following information is, therefore, providedfor 30 December 1975, not 13 December 1975, as requested.

    1. At 30 December 1975 the Department of Veterans’ Affairs employed 1 1, 105 full-time staff, ( 10,538 operative and 567 inoperative) and 535 part-time staff.
    2. At 30 June 1976, the Department employed 10,901 full-time staff, (10,316 operative and 585 inoperative) and 572 part-time staff.
    3. At 30 April 1977, following the transfer of Defence Service Homes and War Graves Administration to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Department employed 11,878 full-time staff, (11,382 operative and 496 inoperative) and 628 part-time staff.
    1. There were 424 effective vacancies which is 3.38 per cent of the total establishment at 30 May 1 977.
    2. to (5) The information requested is not kept by my Department in the form sought.

Nursing Homes (Question No. 1110)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the requirement for nursing staff to patients in registered nursing homes in each State and Territory.
  2. What is the award wage for all classifications of staff commonly employed in nursing homes for each State and Territory.
  3. For nursing homes approved under the National Health Act, what was the median weekly fee for each State, when last surveyed.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The individual State Government requirements for staffing of nursing homes are:

New South Wales

Registered Nurses- 3 hours per week for each ordinary care patient and 5 hours per week for each extensive care patient

Nurse aides and Assistants- 7 hours per week for each ordinary care patient and 1 1 hours per week for each extensive care patient

The hours of Chief Nurses are included in the above requirements on the following basis-

Homes of 30 beds or less- 30 hours included Homes of 3 1 to 50 beds- 20 hours included Homes of 5 1 beds or more- nil hours included.

Victoria

Day and Evening Shifts-one nurse to each 10 patients or fraction of 10 patterns

Night Shift- one nurse to each 1 5 patients or fraction of 15 patients.

Queensland

The number and categories of staff are determined for each home to the satisfaction of the Director-General of Health and Medical Services. Provided that-

  1. a registered nurse is on duty or on immediate call at all times; and
  2. at night a responsible person is continuously employed on active duty on each floor of the home. Provided that-

    1. if on the ground floor there are more than 20 patients there shall be an additional person on duty (or on immediate call) for each 20 patients or fraction of 20 patients;
    2. if on a floor above the ground floor there are more than 15 patients there shall be an additional person on duty (or on immediate call) for each additional 15 patients or fraction of 15 patients.

South Australia

The South Australian Department of Public Health has issued a technical bulletin setting out recommended staff levels for nursing homes. The recommended staff/patient ratios are:

At least one registered nurse should be on duty or on call 24 hours a day seven days a week with provisions made for relief personnel whenever a nurse or attendant is off duty for any reason.

In addition to the registered nurse in charge of the nursing home there should be:

  1. For the work period commonly termed the morning shift (approximately 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.) nursing personnel in the ratio of 1 per 6 patients or fraction thereof and 1 per additional 6 patients or major fraction thereof.
  2. For the afternoon shift (approximately 3.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m.) nursing personnel in the ratio of 1 per 8 patients or fraction thereof and 1 for each additional 8 patients or major fraction thereof.
  3. For the night shift (approximately 1 1.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m.) nursing personnel on duty in the ratio of 1 per 15 patients or fraction thereof and 1 for each additional15 patients or major fraction thereof.

In addition to the above, sufficient domestic staff should be provided, including Cook, Relieving Cook, Cleaners, Laundress (except where laundry is done outside the institution), Handyman.

Western Australia

The State Private Hospital Regulations in relation to nursing homes require one- registered general trained nurse to every 10 patients or proportion thereof, so that there is available at the nursing home one trained nurse at all times, plus a sufficient number of nursing aides and nursing assistants to ensure proper patient care. The State Authority’s application of these requirements is that one registered general trained nurse must be on the premises at all times plus adequate supportive staff.

Tasmania

At least one currently registered general trained or geriatric trained nurse shall be on duty at all times during each day and at least one currently registered general trained or geriatric trained nurse shall be in residence and on call or duty during each night. In addition to these trained staff, an appropriate number of nursing aides is obligatory.

Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Sufficient general trained nursing staff, either full time (working 40 hours per week) or part time, to provide for each approved extensive care patient a minimum of six hours trained nursing care per week and in respect of other qualified nursing home patients minimum trained nursing care of two hours per week for each patient. In all cases the staff must be adequately supported by nursing aides or assistants and domestic staff. A general trained nurse must be on the premises on duty or on call at all times.

Requirements for Commonwealth Nursing Home Benefits

The staffing requirements set for the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory are also used as minimum requirements for eligibility for the payment of Commonwealth nursing home benefits under the provisions of the National Health Act for all nursing homes except those located within the State of New South Wales. The staff/patient ratios recently adopted by the New South Wales State authorities are accepted in that State by the Commonwealth because of their similarity to those laid down by the Commonwealth.

  1. The following table shows the award wages or the range of award wages for classifications of staff commonly employed in nursing homes for each State and Territory.
  1. The following table shows the median weekly fee for non-government nursing homes approved under the National Health Act in each State as was indicated in the survey conducted by my Department in respect of 1 May 1 977:

United Kingdom Servicemen: Benefits (Question No. 1214)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Are former United Kingdom servicemen, who are entitled to receive the Australian Service Pension deprived of the fringe benefits available to former Australian servicemen in receipt of the same pension.
  2. If so, will the Minister give consideration to removing this anomaly.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. Yes. This has been the case since this benefit was granted by the former Labor Government in 1 975.
  2. In view of the Government’s policy of keeping increases in public expenditure to a minimum, I do not propose to seek Government approval to vary the present arrangements at this point of time.

AUS Student Travel Pry Ltd (Question No. 1331)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a meeting of 152 unsecured creditors of AUS Travel, at which the creditors were informed that recorded losses total over $ 100,000 mostly relating to charterflights at the end of 1 977 and that these losses may be significantly higher than $100,000.
  2. If so, can the Minister supply any information concerning (a) the total number of creditors of the Company and (b) the order of the potential loss to be borne by student members of the company.
  3. Is the Minister able to say whether students were encouraged to pay several months in advance the total amount of their air fares because of the explicit statement in the AUS Travel brochure that all flights are subject to Government approval and that conditions of carriage are subject to change by Government decision.
  4. If so, does the licensing of charter flight operations to do business in this way commit the Government to act as guarantor of AUS Travel flights; if not, why not.
  5. Should uniform legislation apply in respect of the reimbursing of persons who suffer loss from the failure of travel companies; if so, what action does the Minister intend to take to implement this.
  6. Was the Prime Minister reported in Hansard, 16 August 1977, pages 1 and 15, as saying that the Commonwealth has responsibilities for students throughout the whole of Australia and that it is concerned to see that the arrangements that they might want to make in this area are appropriate and that student interests are properly safeguarded.
  7. If so, what does the Government see as its responsibilities to student creditors of AUS Travel.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. My attention was drawn to a meeting in South Australia of students who had made arrangements to travel with AUS Student Travel Pty Ltd but I am unable to confirm that it was the same meeting referred to.
  2. AUS Student Travel resumed trading activities on 12 September 1977 after agreement was reached on financial arrangements with its principal creditors namely, Qantas Airways Ltd., Thai Airways International, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, Singapore Airlines Ltd, Malaysian Airline System, Scandanavian Airlines Systems and Trans Australia Airlines. As the company is now trading again, I understand there is no longer a question of any financial loss being borne by student clients.
  3. and (4) The Australian Union of Students arranges charter flights under the terms of the Government’s affinity charter policy. The procedure is for the carrier with which AUS has contracted to operate a particular charter, to gain approval from the Department of Transport.

The licensing of a charter flight does not in any way commit the Government to act as guarantor for the flight. The matter is purely a contractual arrangement between the charterer and the airline operator.

  1. The Government has considered various proposals for the regulation of travel agents in Australia. The trading difficulties and closure of a number of travel agencies recently have reinforced the need for some form of regulation of the activities of travel agencies so that the travelling public can avail themselves of their services with confidence. On 25 September, 1977 I announced that the Government had approved the preparation of legislation to license travel agents throughout Australia.
  2. Yes.
  3. 7 ) The Government is continuing to monitor the activities of AUS Student Travel but, as mentioned in my answer to question 2, student travellers are not expected to suffer losses.

Victorian Goulburn Valley Fruitgrowers (Question No. 1434)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 September 1977:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the concern of fruitgrowers in the Victorian Goulburn Valley regarding the involvement of the Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd in the proposed takeover of the co-operative canning company SPC Ltd by the Bank’s affiliate, Henry Jones IXL Ltd.
  2. If so, what action can be taken by the Government to discourage smart money raids of this sort and ensure the long-term protection of producers co-operatives from raiders.
  3. Will he make representations to the Reserve Bank seeking a directive from that Bank to the CBA to dissuade the CBA from persisting with any financial adventures that threaten the interests of farmers, who are already on the breadline.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) See answer to Question No. 1433.

Canned Meat as Food Aid (Question No. 1520)

Mr McVeigh:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) What quantities of Australian canned meat are provided by the Australian Government as a food aid item.
  2. To which countries, and in what quantities to each, has canned meat been provided as a food aid item.
  3. What positive action is the Government talcing to encourage more canned meat being used as a food aid item.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The quantities of Australian canned meat provided to developing countries in the past three years under the Australian food aid program are detailed in the table hereunder. Estimated shipments in the present financial year are also shown.
  1. The bulk of Australia’s food aid is provided under the Food Aid Convention (FAC) of the International Wheat Agreement which commits Australia to supply a minimum of 225,000 tonnes of food grains per annum to developing countries. While small quantities of rice or coarse grains can be substituted for wheat or flour under the terms of the FAC, it is not possible to substitute non-grain foods such as meat, vegetable oils, milk powders and so on.

It is generally acknowledged that grain foods, particularly wheat, are the most cost effective means of transferring nutrition to developing countries. The requests which Australia receives for food aid assistance reflect this realisation. On occasions, however, canned meat is requested by potential recipients, in which case Australia attempts to oblige by providing quantities consistent with current funding capacity, and provided we are satisfied as to the proposed usage.

The Government recently decided to include non-grain foods regularly as part of the Australian aid program in future years. We expect this to provide some opportunities for greater utilisation of canned meat. Actual purchases will, however, be related to the requirements of specific nutritional impact projects Australia agrees to assist.

There has been some success in shipping canned meat as part of Australia’s commodity pledge to the World Food Program (WFP). Australia’s ability to supply canned meat in quantity has been formally notified to the WFP for many years. The selection of commodities, however, is at WFP discretion.

In this context it is somewhat unfortunate that after extensive representations to WFP, on a general plane, concerning the availability of canned meat from Australia, Australian producers were unable to fill a WFP order for 646 tonnes of canned pork. In fact 165 tonnes was all that could be supplied within the three months quotation period.

The Government is keenly conscious of the position of beef producers and will seek to make use of Australian beef within the aid program as appropriate, bearing in mind constraints imposed by dietary preferences, shelf-life factors, cost disadvantages and, of course, funding limitations on the aid appropriations.

Adelaide University: Biohazards Committee (Question No. 1537)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1977:

  1. Has a Biohazards Committee been established at Adelaide University.
  2. If so, who are the members of this committee.
  3. Is the Australian Government represented on the committee.
  4. Will the Australian Government make submissions to the committee.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) My understanding is that an interim biological hazards committee is being established by the Council of the University of Adelaide.
  2. I have been advised that the Vice-Chancellor of the University is to chair the interim committee. The membership is to be drawn principally from the University of Adelaide and is proposed to include: a biochemist, a microbiologist from the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, a geneticist, a physical scientist, an agricultural scientist, an environmentalist, a senior technician, a lawyer, a clinical pathologist, three members of the university council who are not members of staff, three senior members of academic staff from the arts or social sciences, and a post graduate student.
  3. The Australian Government is not represented on the Interim Committee.
  4. I see no need to make submissions to the University of Adelaide’s interim committee but expect that the advice of that committee, as with the advice of the Standing Committee on Recombinant DNA Molecules of the Australian Academy of Science would be taken into account in the deliberations of government granting bodies.

The committee is comparable to the ethical committees established by various hospitals and universities to monitor certain types of research. In this regard, it is a matter for the university and not one for the government.

At present, the responsibility to determine the conditions for the safe performance of this research rests with the Australian Academy of Science and it is anticipated that the potential University of Adelaide committee would liaise with the Academy.

Airport Runways (Question No. 1544)

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that Laker Airways, in order to offer cheap air fares, must operate their aeroplanes to full loading capacity in respect of fuel, freight and passengers.
  2. If so, does this requirement oblige an economically operating airline to fly a minimum number of airline stops.
  3. Is it a fact that to enable the Laker DC 10 aircraft to operate economic long distance stopovers from Brisbane Airport, at least 100 passengers would have to be offloaded.
  4. If so, would this disability occur particularly because Brisbane Airport runway is the shortest capital city runway in Australia.
  5. Would the Government be satisfied if the main runway at Tullamarine Airport was only 7760 feet in legnth.
  6. Will he inquire whether Qantas and the other international carriers to Australia would be content to have the main runway at Tullamarine Airport 7760 feet in length.
  7. Which genuine international airports to his knowledge have main runways of less than 8000 feet.
  8. Is it a fact that greater runway length is required to achieve adequate aircraft performance in tropical and subtropical airports.
  9. If so, why is Brisbane Airport expected to function in a sub-tropical climate with a runaway shorter than Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin or Alice Springs Airports.
  10. 10) Would it be fatally incorrect to claim that no disability exists because of the length of the runway at Brisbane Airport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In the absence of full details of Mr Laker ‘s plans at the present time, an answer would be speculative. However, it is usual for aircraft operators to plan for high load factors so as to provide the economies to offer lower fares.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. No.
  4. Not applicable.
  5. A runway of 7760 feet in length at Tullamarine Airport would not be adequate for all of the operations currently being undertaken at that airport.
  6. 1 cannot see how any useful purpose would be served by asking Qantas and the other international carriers such a hypothetical question.
  7. I have not had an exhaustive study made, but I am aware that the runway at Wellington in New Zealand is considerably shorter, and the available take-off distance at Christchurch is less than that at Brisbane.
  8. All other parameters being the same, greater lengths are required at higher temperatures. The adequacy in any particular set of circumstances is clearly related to the demand.
  9. Runway length is not the only parameter involved. For example, although the runway at Alice Springs is longer than that at Brisbane, limiting take-off weights are less than those at Brisbane at the same temperature, because of the elevation of Alice Springs. In determining the specific needs for any given location, the Government is guided by advice given by the operators concerned. In relation to Brisbane, the operators have indicated that they consider the existing runway length is adequate to meet their needs until at least 1980, perhaps longer.
  10. 10) As I stated previously, the operators of services to Brisbane have indicated that the existing runway at Brisbane is adequate at this time.

Water Hyacinth Control (Question No. 1550)

Mr FitzPatrick:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 22 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the experimental program using a South American beetle to control water hyacinth still continuing.
  2. If so, is the beetle proving a success in controlling river weed.
  3. What contribution has the Commonwealth Government made in funding this particular project which is under the charge of Dr Ken Harley of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Brisbane.
  4. What other experiments are taking place.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The weevil released to promote the biological control of water hyacinth is becoming well established at its liberation sites. Liberations began in September 197S and should be completed by early 1 978. However, spread from the liberation sites has not been rapid, because of the length of the weevil ‘s life cycle. It is thus still too early to assess its impact.
  3. The project, which began in 1974-75, was initially funded by the Rural Credits Development Fund. However in July 1976 the Commonwealth Government, in conjunction with the New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian State Governments, agreed to finance joint action to control water hyacinth in the Gingham watercourse near Moree N.S.W. As part of the Commonwealth contribution, CSIRO increased its consolidated revenue expenditure on hyacinth control by $15,000 in 1976-77. This level of consolidated revenue support is being maintained in 1977-78; there is also a contribution of $23,369 from the Rural Credits Development Fund this year.
  4. CSIRO is examining other insects that may contribute to the biological control of water hyacinth. In recent weeks a moth (Sameodes albiguttalis) was liberated near Gatton in south-eastern Queensland. A mass-rearing program is now under way and further liberations will continue during the summer.

A second moth (Acigona infusella) is under consideration for introduction into Australia for evaluation under quarantine. Other, insects may follow as part of an expanded program on the biological control of water weeds.

In order to ensure that the biological control program will be as effective as possible, support research is being undertaken into the biology and ecology of water hyacinth. Part of this work is an investigation of seed germination requirements, in collaboration with the Seeds Laboratory of the N.S.W. Department of Agriculture.

Repatriation General Hospitals (Question No. 1570)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1977:

What proportions of the beds at each Repatriation General Hospital were (a) occupied by (i) eligible exservicemen, (ii) other ex-servicemen and (iii) others and (b) unoccupied at the most recent date for which the information is available.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

Information is not kept in the precise form requested by the honourable member. No distinction is made in the table below on the one hand between eligible ex-servicemen and other eligible patients (for example, war widows) nor on the other between ineligible ex-servicemen and other community patients.

The table shows the position as at 14 September 1977.

Motor Vehicles: Studies on Ownership and Operation (Question No. 1592)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 October 1977:

Has his Department carried out any studies into the costs of ownership and operation of private motor cars in urban and inner urban areas compared with the use of rent-a-cars e.g. Budget Car Rentals, Avis; if so, what do those studies show; if not, will he give consideration to having studies carried out.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

My Department has not carried out any studies into the costs of ownership and operation of private motor cars in urban and inner urban areas compared with the use of cars available from rent-a-car firms. I will give consideration to initiating such a study should the need be clearly demonstrated.

Brisbane Airport (Question No. 1602)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. What sums have been expended on, or on matters related to Brisbane Airport in each of the years from 1 966-67 to 1976-77 inclusive.
  2. What was the purpose of each item of expenditure during that period.
  3. 3 ) For what provisions and for what purposes have funds been provided in the 1977-78 Budget for Brisbane Airport and related matters:
  4. What future action is proposed by the Government in respect of Brisbane Airport.
  5. 5) Is the Airport adequate to handle present needs.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Expenditure incurred at Brisbane during the past 10 years together with the nature of that expenditure, is summarised as follows:

Expenditure of approximately $5.376m has been incurred since 1974-75 on the construction of the International Terminal Complex.

  1. Funds have been provided in the 1977-78 Budget to ensure, inter alia, the continued efficient aviation operations at Brisbane Airport. Specific works programs include:

    1. extension of power supply to refuelling facility near the international terminal building ($56,000)
    2. strengthening of south/east end of 13/31 runway ($160,000)
    3. extension of sewerage system ($95,000)
    4. a further step in the progressive acquisition of land for future Brisbane Airport development ($68 1 , 000)
  2. The future Brisbane Airport development strategy is currently being examined by the Government and a decision is pending.
  3. The domestic operators, TAA and Ansett, are giving consideration to improvements to their terminal facilities. In other respects the aerodrome is regarded as suitable for traffic expected until 1980.

Brisbane Airport (Question No. 1661)

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) With regard to Brisbane Airport, will he provide me with a record of aircraft movements, arrival times, departure times, and type of aircraft, using the main runway on a typically (a) busy and (b) quiet day.
  2. What is the minimum allowable time between successive landings for various types of aircraft on domestic and international services.
  3. What is the minimum allowable time between successive departures for various types of aircraft on domestic and international services, showing the restrictions on the operation of following aircraft after the take-off of wide-bodied jets.
  4. Are these time intervals considered sufficiently safe by the pilots of each type of aircraft using the airport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The records of aircraft movements at Brisbane Airport on a typically (a) busy day (21/8/77) and (b) quiet day ( 14/8/77) are at Attachment ‘A’.
  2. ) The answer to the question is set out in Airways Operations Instructions RAC-2-29 to RAC-2-32 and RAC-2-37, the details of which are also set out in Attachment ‘ B ‘.
  3. The answer to this question is set out in Airways Operations Instructions RAC-2-26 to RAC-2-28 and RAC-2-37, the details of which are also set out in Attachment ‘ B ‘.
  4. The separation standards contained in Airways Operations Instructions RAC-2-26 to RAC-2-32 (Attachment B’) are those prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and which are adhered to by Australia as a Contracting State. The standards have been in use for many years. The wake turbulence separation standards in RAC-2-37, which have been applied since 1976 were developed after consultation with the industry, including the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP). Since these standards were introduced there has been no indication that they are in any way unsafe.

The nature and bulk of attachments are such that it is not practical to reproduce them in Hansard. Copies are available from the Table Office.

Airports: Fire-Fighting Services (Question No. 1689)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the criteria followed in determining whether or not airport fire-fighting services are in accord with standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
  2. Which airports in Australia have fire-fighting services that meet ICAO standards.
  3. Which airports have fire-fighting services that do not meet ICAO standards and in what respects are the services at each of those airports deficient.
  4. What was the expenditure by his Department on airport fire-fighting services during each of the years from 1970-71 to 1976-77 inclusive and what expenditure is proposed during 1977-78.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) For international operations ICAO prescribes three grades of advice having a descending order in the obligation each places on ICAO member States. The first grade is known as a standard, followed by recommended practices and by guidance material. The capability of a rescue and fire fighting service to be provided at an airport is not the subject of a ICAO standard. In determining the fire fighting capability to be established at an airport Australia generally follows ICAO recommended practices. Note is taken of the guidance material of ICAO and the advice of Australian experts.
  2. and (3) The service provided at Sydney and Melbourne meets ICAO recommended practices and ICAO guidance material. The services at Brisbane, Darwin and Perth only fall marginally short of some of the guidance material. At domestic airports the provision of water and foam capacity and the capacity to discharge this extinguishing material in accordance with the prescriptions of ICAO are recognised as the primary objective. These prescriptions were revised at the end of 1976 and maximum effort has been made to utilise existing fire appliances and improved foaming agents to meet these revised specifications wherever a service is provided. Meeting them in full depends on the purchase of new equipment Initial purchases are in progress.
  3. Expenditure on airport fire fighting services is as follows:

Airports: Fire-fighting Services (Question No. 1690)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 October 1977:

  1. At which airports in Australia does his Department provide a fire-fighting service.
  2. What are the criteria followed in determining at which airports fire-fighting services will be provided.
  3. At which airports were fire-fighting services (a) withdrawn and (b) installed during each of the years from 1970-71 to 1976-77, inclusive.
  4. At which airports is it proposed to withdraw or reduce fire-fighting services during 1977-78.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. My Department provides fire-fighting services at primary airports at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Darwin, Perth, Norfolk Island, Adelaide, Alice Springs, Cairns, Canberra, Coolangatta, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Mt Isa, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Devonport, Dubbo, Essendon, Maryborough, Port Hedland, Tamworth, Wagga and Wynyard and at secondary airports at Archerfield, Bankstown, Jandakot, Moorabbin and Parafield. In addition, a fire-fighting service is provided at the training airport at Avalon.
  2. For international regularly used airports a fire service is provided. For airports used only occasionally as an international alternate airport a fire service would be provided if the general level of aircraft activity was sufficient to give it priority for the service over other domestic airports. For domestic airports the general objective adopted has been to provide fire services to cover about 90 per cent of all users of regular public transport air services. Provision of a service at an airport handling 25,000 embarking/disembarking passengers per annum was judged to achieve this objective. Another guide taken in establishment of services was that, in order to maintain a minimum level of preparedness and efficiency in a fire service unit, there would need to be an aircraft activity of at least 2,800 regular public transport movements per annum or, where this level was not achieved, total aircraft movements in excess of 1 5,000 per annum.
  3. (a) Fire fighting services were withdrawn as followsLongreach, June 1971; Mangalore, Nov. 1973; Derby, Nov. 1973;Narromine, Feb. 1974; Broken Hill, Aug. 1974; Geralton.May 1976.

    1. Services installed- Melbourne (Main station June 1971; Melbourne (Satellite station), Aug. 1973; Sydney (Satellite station), to be commissioned later in 1977.
  4. The extent of provision of airport rescue and firefighting services over the next five years is currently under review. Until it is complete lam unable to answer this part of the question.

Establishment of Technical College at Redcliffe (Question No. 1706)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 6 October 1977:

Has the Queensland Government ever put forward a proposal either directly or through the appropriate Commission for the establishment of a technical college at Redcliffe in the Electoral Division of Petrie; if so, on what dates were the submissions made and what was their nature.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Queensland Government has not put forward any proposal seeking Commonwealth Government funds for the establishment of a Technical College at Redcliffe.

Airports: Land Available for use by Aviation Industry (Question No. 1717)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) What land on airports is available for use by the aviation industry as a result of paying air navigation charges.
  2. What means are used to define the limits of this land.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Under the Air Navigation (Charges) Act, charges are payable in respect of the use by aircraft of aerodromes and other facilities and services provided by the Commonwealth. By virtue of payment of these charges, operators of aircraft are entitled to use those areas of land within the boundaries of Commonwealth aerodromes which are available for the landing, take off and surface movement of aircraft other than those apron areas which are provided and maintained by individual operators for their own aircraft by virtue of arrangements made with the Department granting such an operator exclusive rights in respect of those areas.
  2. The areas of land provided for the manoeuvring and standing of aircraft are normally defined by appropriate markers or markings at each Commonwealth aerodrome.

Sustenance Allowance (Question No. 1728)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

What are the current rates of the two types of sustenance allowance, and what are the respective conditions for granting them.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

Sustenanace Allowance is payable, under regulation 71 of the Repatriation Regulations, in respect of any period during which a veteran is prevented from working through the necessities of treatment for an incapacity accepted as being service-related. It is also payable, under regulation 72, when a veteran cannot work because of medical investigation of a pension claim he has made or of disability for which he receives a pension.

Sustenance Allowance takes the form of a payment which, together with any disability pension in payment, is equal to either the level of the 100 per cent General Rate pension or the Special (T. & P.I.) Rate pension, as applicable.

A veteran who is prevented from working due to the necessities of out-patient treatment for a disability accepted as service-related, treatment or institutional care in consequence of venereal disease contracted during war service or waiting for the supply or repair of artificial limbs or other surgical aids and appliances which are necessary because of an incapacity which is service-related, is paid sustenance allowance at the lower rate.

If a veteran has a wife (and/or children) an additional amount is payable to him, equal to the 100 per cent General

Rate(s) for the dependant(s) or the 100 per cent General Rate(s) less any pension(s) payable to the dependant(s).

A veteran who has received out-patient treatment for period in excess of 28 days, or is receiving authorised inpatient treatment at a hospital or similar institution, for an incapacity accepted as service-related is paid sustenance allowance at the higher rate. This rate continues to be paid to a veteran during convalescence after he ceases to receive inpatient treatment

The current rates of the 100 per cent General Rate pension and the Special Rate pension payable to a veteran are $34.05 per week and $90. 1 5 per week respectively. The 100 per cent General Rate for a wife is $4.05 per week and $1.38 per week for each eligible child. These rates also apply to dependants of Special Rate pensioners.

Department of Construction: Expenditure (Question No. 1793)

Mr Braithwaite:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 13 October, 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the amount of expenditure through his Department on capital works within the Electoral Divisions of Leichhardt, Herbert, Kennedy and Dawson during each of the years 1973-74 to 1976-77, inclusive.
  2. What was the total expenditure by his Department during the same years.
Mr McLeay:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. The Department of Construction is the design and construction authority for all Commonwealth Government Departments. The following is a list of expenditure in the Electoral Divisions of Leichhardt, Herbert, Kennedy and Dawson on capital works through the Department of Construction on behalf of all Departments, the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (A.I.M.S.). Individual minor works valued at less than $ 1 5,000 each have not been included.
  1. The total expenditure on works by the Department of Construction over the past four years was: l973-74-$326m; 1974-75-$486m; 1975-76-$662m; 1976-77-$684m

These figures include expenditures on capital works, repairs and maintenance and furniture and fittings. They do not include expenditures by the Department on salaries and administrative expenses.

Minister for Primary Industry: Visit to Tokyo (Question No. 1806)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 18 October 1977:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 465 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 10 March 1 977?

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Question No. 465 was one of four identical questions (Nos. 464-7) asked of the Treasurer, Minister for Transport and Minister for Foreign Affairs, as well as myself.
  2. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is co-ordinating the reply to the four questions. It will be appreciated that there were a number of accounts, incurred in foreign locations, to be checked and this has taken some substantial rime. It is expected, however, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be making a detailed reply very soon.

Sheltered Workshops (Question No. 1879)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister, representating the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 October 1977:

Is there a need for some form of accreditation or evaluation of sheltered workshops to ensure that a particular workshop does not attempt to do types of work beyond its capability.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

It is clearly important that, as part of its responsibility for administering the Handicapped Persons’ Assistance Act, my department should assess the capacities of sheltered workshops and ensure that they meet the requirements of the Act.

The department is now finalising an analysis of returns from sheltered workshops which will help to identify requirements for upgrading services. Improved techniques for evaluating programs for handicapped persons are being developed by the department with the assistance of the Schonell Educational Research Centre of the University of Queensland. The department also works closely with the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled in promoting acceptable standards for sheltered workshops and is developing methods of improving the performance of workshops.

However, restrictions on the types of work undertaken by sheltered workshops do not seem to me to be commensurate with the aims of the handicapped persons assistance program. Indeed I believe it would be undesirable to discourage initiative and self-development generated within the sheltered workshop movement, as this would operate to the detriment of handicapped people by reducing employment opportunities.

As most production undertaken by sheltered workshops is on a contract or sub-contract basis, a high degree of selfregulation is inherent, since failure to meet specifications and time schedules militates against the future viability of the workshop.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 October 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19771027_reps_30_hor107/>.