House of Representatives
2 March 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 335

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS

Mr SPEAKER:

-The security of Parliament House will be improved by procedures now being put into operation. A pass system is being introduced to control entry into the building and into the non-public areas. The public will continue to be admitted to King’s Hall, the lower floor display area and the public galleries of the chambers. No person other than a senator or member will be permitted to enter the remainder of the building, that is, the non-public areas, without a pass. Persons permanently employed in the building and others who need to come to the building regularly will be issued with photographic identity passes. Visitors granted entry to the non-public areas will be issued with day passes or temporary passes as the need arises. The pass system will not alter the existing freedom of movement or the existing restrictions upon the movement within the building of persons permitted to enter the non-public areas. Passes are to be worn by the pass holders.

When the pass system is in operation, all baggage coming into the building will be checked with the assistance of detection equipment. Senators and members will be asked to check their baggage if it has been out of their control. Persons entering the public galleries of the chambers will pass through detection equipment similar to that now used at airports. Outside doors on the lower floor of the building, other than the regular and manned points of entry, are being deadlocked or fitted with alarm systems. The patrol of the building by the nightwatchmen is being upgraded and supplemented by an alarm system. The Commonwealth Police will increase surveillance on the exterior of the building. Existing security measures compatible with the above arrangements, such as the scrutiny of mail by detection machines, will be continued. An officer has been appointed to co-ordinate these activities throughout the building. It is hoped that all honourable senators and members will cooperate with us in the measures which are being taken. This statement is being made simultaneously by the President of the Senate in that chamber.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- Mr Speaker, I believe that all honourable gentlemen should welcome very much the statement you have just made. It is similar to that being made by the President in the Senate. Security in these days is a vitally important matter and it is not something that this House can take lightly. I think it needs to be understood that measures to undertake proper security in this Parliament are measures designed not only to protect members of this House, maybe not even principally designed to protect members of this House, but also to protect other people to whom we have very significant obligations. The attendants, the clerks, and other people who service this building could be put at risk if security for the Parliament and the parliamentary building is not adequate. Visitors from outside, who come in great numbers to this building, could be put at risk if a terrorist incident occurred while they were visiting here. Important visitors from overseas often come into this building. Quite clearly they could not come into this building if the security arrangements were not adequate having regard to their own office and their own position.

Honourable gentlemen would know that Sir Robert Mark has arrived to advise the Government. I have already had discussions with him this morning. He has been a most distinguished police officer in security matters and has been significantly involved in providing adequate security for the House of Commons and the House of Lords. If you, Mr Speaker, and the President would welcome discussions with Sir Robert while he is in Australia, quite clearly his services would be available to you in relation to these matters. Any resources that Mr Speaker and the President regard as being necessary for the security of the Parliament will clearly be made available by the Government as they ought to be. There is no question that the responsibility for the security of the Parliament resides with the Presiding Officers, Mr Speaker and the President. That is not questioned by anyone. Quite clearly again in one sense security is indivisible.

While responsibility within the Parliament resides with Mr Speaker and the President, if threats arise to Parliament they arise from people outside who have access to resources outside. If a terrorist incident occurred in this building, such as a hostage being taken or a kidnap or murder attempt of one kind or another, clearly resources from outside would also be needed to help to deal with the event, to track down whoever was involved and to overcome whatever difficulties might arise from the incident. A bomb incident occurred in the House of Commons not so long ago. In this sense those who have the actual physical task of undertaking security in the House of Commons have absolute responsibility to the Presiding Officers in the Commons and the Lords- to draw an analogy to this place, Mr Speaker and the President- and would know and understand the general security arrangements that can be made available in an emergency to assist with the internal task of protection of the Commons.

On all the advice available to the Government the steps that you, Mr Speaker, and the President have taken are necessary. They ought to be supported by all honourable gentlemen. The Government stands ready to provide such resources as you and the President might deem necessary in the interests of the safety of this building and this institution, not just because of the members in it- let me emphasise this- but also because of those who work in the building, those visiting the Parliament and visitors from overseas. The Government itself has a significant responsibility for the protection of guests in this country.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith) by leave- The Opposition welcomes the statement and notes its contents. At the outset we note that there will be no interference with the rights and privileges of the members of this House and of the Senate. We would think it not inappropriate and hope that you, Mr Speaker, and the President would have no objection, if the Privileges Committee wanted to have a look at the application of the measures outlined in the statement. The Privileges Committee might want to ensure that the rights of members coming to and leaving the premises together with their relatives and others can be properly looked after. I note in the statement that members will not be involved at all. They are readily identified. The question of their belongings and their baggage is the subject of their own control; nevertheless it should be recognised that the safety of others could well be involved.

We recognise that security is necessary for everybody in this country. We recognise, of course, that security of Parliament has some special significance. The greatest danger is for the people who come here. We are convinced ourselves that the security measures taken in the past have been rather reasonable and certainly effective. We have had no difficulties. We do not want to be placing too much emphasis on the fact that we expect extraordinary difficulties to arise now because of an incident that happened recently in the main city of Australia. We find that at times it is possible to over-emphasise security measures and thus attract more deranged people to take an interest in trying to break security.

We welcome all the remarks the Prime Minister made about security in the nation, but we recognise, as members of Parliament, that when we leave this place we are at the mercy of anybody who wants to deal us some mortal or injurious blow. That is a risk we run in public life. But we do not want to endanger other people in this area. I make this point only because people will be coming here to demonstrate quite reasonably in respect to their rights. We do not want any interference which would deny them access to this place. I note that that situation can be met. Generally, school children and other people should be able to come here in a free and unfettered way.

We want to guarantee that this Parliament is readily open to the people. We do not want too much emphasis placed on the fact that this building will become an embattlement where people must have certain passes to come to see us. We want to make certain that democracy is still available to everybody and that everybody can see their elected representatives. We recognise the work that you, Mr Speaker, and Mr President have done in looking at the problems of society as they now exist and we realise that there are risks. It would be quite tragic if we were to look at a statement such as this and not do anything about it. We pledge our support to the intent of what you have outlined in the statement. We also guarantee that we will work with you with the utmost co-operation. I make the point that we want an assurance that the rights of members and those closely associated with them are in no way inhibited.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I appreciate what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). Their speeches give me the indication that this statement has been supported by all members of the House. I indicate to the House that this has been a matter of essential balance. The task the President and I had was to make sure that the Parliament remains the fulcrum of parliamentary democracy and that it is accessible to all members of the public if they choose to come here on legitimate business. On the other hand, there is no point in having a national Parliament if the work of the Parliament cannot proceed because there is no security within it. I appreciate the co-operation that has been promised by all honourable members and I assure all honourable members that I believe there will be no let or hindrance to all members and senators in carrying out their democratic duties.

page 337

PETITION

The Clerk:

– A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows and a copy will be referred to the appropriate Minister:

Public Libraries

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

That the Public library services of Queensland are inadequate both in quality and quantity and that the burden of provision is placed too heavily upon local government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the committee of inquiry into public libraries as a matter of urgency.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Hodges. Petition received.

page 337

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 337

QUESTION

AWARDING OF COMPUTER CONTRACT

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I direct a question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact, as reported in the media, that the decision taken to seek fresh tenders for a replacement computer for the Australian Bureau of Statistics was taken by the Prime Minister alone? Was the decision to cancel existing tenders in February of this year also taken by the Prime Minister alone? When was Cabinet informed of the Prime Minister’s action?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I shall answer the question. The decision was not taken by me alone. The decision to recall tenders in their entirety was taken by the Treasurer, the Minister for Administrative Services and me after advice from the most senior officials from several departments that it was the only proper course. So we took that decision.

page 337

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the current situation concerning the dispute within the Commonwealth Employment Service?

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

-The House will recall that I indicated in answer to a question asked yesterday about the dispute within the Commonwealth Employment Service that it was of great regret to the Government that the unions involved had rejected proposals made some weeks ago which could have resolved the dispute. At the time I was informing the House of that, Mr Peck, the Federal Secretary of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association contacted my office seeking a meeting with me. That meeting took place in Canberra last night. I advised the unions of the Government’s position and of its determination to reach a resolution of this dispute.

Following my discussions with Mr Peck, he and other officers of the ACOA and representatives of the Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) met representatives of the Public Service Board and my Department. As a result of these extensive discussions which continued late into last night a memorandum of understanding was reached as to a basis for the resolution of this dispute. The essence of that memorandum of understanding is that the union officials will remove all bans imposed against the handling of outside applications for advertised positions of employment officer within the Commonwealth Employment Service in return for the establishment of a review panel such as I outlined to the House in my answer to the question yesterday. I understand that executives of the relevant unions will meet today to consider and to endorse the memorandum of understanding with the proposals being put to members in New South Wales and Victoria as soon as possible.

I can express pleasure on behalf of the Government that there appear good prospects now for the resolving of the dispute so that work can recommence immediately on the Government’s priority program of upgrading and improving the services and facilities of the Commonwealth Employment Service to meet the current day needs of the country’s manpower problems.

page 337

QUESTION

AWARDING OF COMPUTER CONTRACT

Mr HOLDING:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer whether it is a fact, as reported in the Melbourne Sun this morning, that in January there was a break-in at the Australian Bureau of Statistics in Canberra? Is it correct thai a filing cabinet was forced open? If so, can the Treasurer inform the House what sort of information this cabinet contained and specifically whether it contained any information relating to the $20m computer tender providing for a replacement computer for the Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Trade and Resources? Was there any evidence that documentation had been disturbed or removed? Finally, can he inform the House why this matter has not been acknowledged publicly before?

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I did see the report in this morning’s edition of the Melbourne Sun. 1 am having some inquiries made about the allegations contained in the first part of the report. Until I have a response to that inquiry I am unable to respond to any other part of the honourable member’s question.

page 338

QUESTION

ALLEGED ATROCITIES IN KAMPUCHEA

Mr BURNS:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question which I direct to the Minister for Foreign Affairs concerns Kampuchea, Are reports that the British Government intends to move in the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission for an investigation into alleged atrocities in Kampuchea correct? If so, will Australia support the British move?

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

– Yes, the reports are correct and, yes, we will give strong support to the British move. Reports of atrocities in Kampuchea continue to appear in the media and are mainly based on accounts given by refugees who have fled to neighbouring countries. We, of course, have no independent information on the situation which might confirm or refute specific reports because Australia does not have formal diplomatic relations with Kampuchea. The few foreigners who have visited this country since the new Government came to power have been severely restricted in their activities. However, notwithstanding the constraints on information, there seems little doubt, as I said in this Parliament I think in August of last year, that the most severe repression has taken place. The Australian Government’s strong condemnation of cruelty and of disregard for human rights has been expressed on many occasions and it has a deep concern over what appears to have happened in Kampuchea. I reiterate the appeal I made to the Government of Kampuchea in August of last year to respect international principles of human rights. Finally, as I confirmed at the outset of this answer, the British are pressing for an independent inquiry and we are supporting that move. It would be invidious- indeed, inhumane- if we were to take any other view for we cannot ignore such questions of human rights in Kampuchea in the face of persistent reports of violations of the most basic of these rights, namely, the right of human beings to life itself.

page 338

QUESTION

AWARDING OF COMPUTER CONTRACT

Mr STEWART:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Who directed the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board to request additional information concerning tenders for the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ computer contract? Why was it necessary for Mr Low, the Chairman of the Board, to send three separate letters to tenderers, each widening the specifications of the contract? Why was the additional information necessary? Did this request for additional information come only after a letter had been received from and subsequent discussion with the Managing Director of IBM Australia Ltd, whose firm was an unsuccessful tenderer for the original contract?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I suggest to the honourable gentleman that he put the detail of his question on the Notice Paper. I repeat that it really seems odd that the Australian Labor Party is seeking to defend a circumstance in which one of the closest advisers to the Commonwealth in relation to the purchase of expensive computer equipment has left the service of the Commonwealth and gone to work with the company that may have been, but was not, the successful tenderer. It is really an odd circumstance if the Australian Labor Party believes that that is a proper series of events to occur. If the Opposition wishes to defend that let it defend it. I venture to say that one of the things that is disturbing honourable gentlemen opposite at the moment is that if the tender had been awarded under those circumstances to Facom Australia Ltd they all would have made speeches attacking that matter. I can only suggest that their disappointment now is that they have had to waste their speeches.

page 338

QUESTION

MR MILAN BRYCH: ENTRY TO AUSTRALIA

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Has Mr Milan Brych, the so-called cancer doctor operating in the Cook Islands, applied for a visa to enter Australia? If so, what restrictions will be imposed on the visa? Has the Queensland Premier stated that he is personally prepared to bring Mr Brych to Brisbane in the Queensland Government’s aircraft if the Commonwealth refuses him entry or places restrictions on his entry? Does the Queensland Premier have the constitutional right to grant such entry or to issue a restriction-free visa to Mr Brych to visit Queensland?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question concludes with a request for a legal opinion. The Minister cannot give such an opinion in answering the question. However, the question did call for certain facts, which the Minister can give.

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

- Mr Brych, as I understand it, travels on a New Zealand passport and therefore does not have to apply for a visa to visit Australia but, because of certain allegations about his alleged criminal history, he comes within the provisions of the Migration Act. In

June last year the Minister for Health advised me that Mr Brych had been struck off the New Zealand medical register owing to the fact that his claim to be a doctor had been investigated very closely by the New Zealand medical authority and they had found against his claim. Following that advice from the Minister for Health, I required that before entry to Australia Mr Brych should sign an undertaking not to practice medicine in Australia or undertake activities which were within the province of the medical profession. This in no way precluded Mr Brych from speaking publicly or privately about his treatment for cancer victims, but unfortunately at that stage Mr Brych refused to sign the undertaking.

However, approximately two hours ago I was advised that a letter had been received in our High Commission in New Zealand containing a signed undertaking by Mr Brych. Therefore the conditions which I imposed have been satisfied by Mr Brych and he is free to travel to Australia at any time that is suitable to him. I hope that he does and tries to justify the treatment which he claims is a beneficial treatment for cancer. Let me say in conclusion that there has never been any suggestion that Mr Brych ‘s right to justify or attempt to justify his treatment has been in any way curtailed. All I have sought to do is to ensure that, subsequent to the New Zealand medical authorities’ findings in relation to his case, he did not practice medicine here or enter the province of the medical profession.

page 339

QUESTION

FAMILY BUSINESS INTERESTS OF HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR FLINDERS

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Prime Minister to the answer that he gave to a question yesterday in which he said: . . . there must be a very real concern not only that justice be done but also that justice be seen to be done.

I ask him, in the light of that most noble remark, why he refused to release the full details made available to him by the ex-Treasurer regarding the ex-Treasurer’s family interests? Would this action not give the Australian people the opportunity to see that justice had in fact been done?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think I indicated on an earlier occasion that it was not my decision to release or not to release any documents, and that position remains. At the time I did release a document which was based on a close examinaion by Mr Stephen Charles, Q.C. I suggest that the words that he approved and that were contained in my statement be looked at very closely. I am advised that he is a man of the utmost honour and integrity in his profession, and I suggest that the statement be re-read.

page 339

QUESTION

SUGAR PRODUCTION

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Trade and Resources seen reports suggesting that cane growers will be forced to destroy 2 million tonnes of cane this year because of restrictions placed on them by the new International Sugar Agreement? Do those reports accurately reflect the position.

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

– I have seen those reports. It is accepted and understood in the industry that there will have to be some restraint on production. As a member of the International Sugar Agreement Australia is required to limit the amount of sugar it exports, and this means curtailing production. Of course, the sugar industry has a choice as to whether it should be a member of the new International Sugar Agreement. It has opted to sign that agreement, which means managing its exports to try to get a better international price. The alternative is to allow the situation to continue in which excess exports are causing ruinously low prices. The industry, the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government have accepted that these obligations are in the best interests of the industry in this country and internationally.

However, it does not mean to say that sugar cane will necessarily be wasted. In some cases sugar could be carried over from one year to another and harvested the following year. In the meantime the industry will be in a much better position to assess what it should be preparing to plant for the following year. So by judicious management of the acreages planted, the industry will be able to avoid any loss or to ensure that the loss will be only small. Within the sugar industry it is well known that there are peaks up to which the industry can produce. Every mill has its mill peak, and people who produce in excess of mill peak take a risk. In years gone by people have had to pay the price for going above mill peaks. Within the new International Sugar Agreement, the undertaking that I have been able to obtain for Australia means that producers in this country will be able to produce up to mill peaks. That at least gives them a guarantee of performing up to the undertaking which they have been given by the Queensland Government and the sugar industry.

page 339

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of allegations that a ‘meat Mafia’ dominates pricing of Australia’s meat exports to the United States? Is it a fact that historical performance is the sole criterion for allocating to Australian exporting firms a proportion of the voluntary quota for those exports? Does this allow much more lucrative sales than in other export markets and handsome profits to meat exporters at a time when a third of the primary producers of beef are working at a loss? Will the Minister facilitate discussions among the parties concerned to ensure that the brunt of the losses due to world price fluctuations is fairly shared among different levels of the industry?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are a doctor.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– Will the Minister indicate what other actions the Government has taken to this end? As I represent the electorate which exports most of Australia’s beef, I do not have to answer that interjection.

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

– I am concerned that Australian beef producers are not treated in the same way that Australian patients were treated during the honourable gentleman’s term as Minister for Health. I therefore view with some apprehension his new found interest in the beef industry. It is an industry which has suffered very serious problems and I do not take kindly to an allegation, by way of new jargon, which suggests that some illegal or semi-illegal organisation might operate beef quotas to the United States. Innuendo and inferences are all very well. They seem to be the basis upon which the honourable member and some of his colleagues in the Labor Party operate.

Unfortunately, there are very real problems in trying to maximise returns for Australian exports to the United States. Restraints on exports were introduced not because Australians wanted to introduce them but because the United States applied quotas. Unfortunately quotas still exist in many of our principal export markets and I hope that, as indicated by my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister the other day, there may be some prospect of easing these quota restraints or even lifting them in the future, which might make present restraints on exports no longer necessary. The system of restraints has meant that a demonstrably higher price has been commanded more recently in the Japanese market than in the United States market. Where there is a system of regulating those who are tendering or quoting for meat in a market there is a demonstrable advantage in a higher price being paid for Australian meat.

The Government has been concerned, however, at the extent to which, within the breakdown of the prices received, the producer is not receiving the sort of income that the Government believes he might. With large numbers of stock going to markets and in many areas, although not in the honourable gentleman’s area, a big percentage of cattle being sold at auction, the capability of the exporters or bidders on their behalf being able to force the prices down has been a traditional part of the defect, as we see it, of the marketing system. The Government is looking at and accelerating the introduction of classification. Perhaps from that some form of stabilisation might emerge. Separately, the Prime Minister has written to Premiers and asked that within their province they ensure that action is taken to minimise the malfunctions of the auction system It is within the power of State governments to contain these functions rather than within the power of the Federal Government. I can assure the honourable gentleman that the Government is concerned to obtain a fair price for Australian beef producers and I am delighted to see, even though it is only in an incipient way, that he seems now to be moving in the same direction.

page 340

QUESTION

PETROLEUM EXPLORATION

Mr SHACK:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for National Development. The Minister will be aware that there has been much discussion in the media recently concerning Australia’s energy problems. In the light of that discussion I ask: Can the Minister indicate what the Government is doing in the area of petroleum exploration, having regard to the desirability of Australia’s becoming selfsufficient in oil?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for that question. It is a very important one. As the honourable member realises, and as 1 am sure all honourable members here realise, the problem of meeting Australia’s oil requirements in the next seven years will be fairly critical. The present situation whereby we are about 70 per cent self-sufficient in oil could well be reversed so that we are importing 70 per cent of our oil requirements. Therefore, the Government has been very active in improving self-sufficiency, principally in trying to produce some renewed confidence and enthusiasm for explorers to find new oil and gas reserves in Australia. We have pursued a very active policy in this regard. By such measures as taxation, a revised crude oil pricing system, clear foreign investment guidelines, removing the excise on oil finds and allowing reasonable exports from the North-West Shelf project, we have, I think, started to encourage that renewed exploration.

I can tell the honourable member that in contrast to 1976, when there were only about 20 exploration drills being made in Australia, the outlook for 1978 is quite different. The advice that I have from industry sources indicates that this year we could have as many as 68 new exploration projects operating. Off-shore there could be as many as 23 and on-shore as many as 45- and that is encouraging.

The honourable member will be pleased to know that close negotiation with the Western Australian Government has meant that areas offshore of Western Australian are once more being re-opened to very active exploration. Fifteen new permits have been given out in the last two years, many of them going to companies that are new to the exploration scene in Australia.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. I know that you have been patient with the Ministers as regards their lengthy replies but I draw attention to the fact they should follow your ruling that replies should be brief. This question this morning was a Dorothy Dixer. If the Minister wants to make a statement, he should make it later.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat. I call upon the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr NEWMAN:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. I am not surprised that the honourable member for Reid would be embarrassed about this information.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister not to refer to a point of order on which I have ruled. I ask him to continue with his answer and to draw it to a conclusion.

Mr NEWMAN:

- Mr Speaker, I was making the point that 15 new permits have been granted to exploration interests off-shore of Western Australia. That is very important. In fact five of them are in areas on the Exmouth plateau where the prospects for gas and oil exploration are fairly bright. So all in all, the Government is taking measures to encourage self-sufficiency in oil. This is one plank in our intention to produce an energetic and practical exploration -

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-No ground for a point of order arises. I know what the honourable member’s point of order is going to be. The Minister will conclude his answer.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, the Minister has been replying to this Dorothy Dix question for four and a half minutes. He should make a statement after Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr NEWMAN:

- Mr Speaker, I am only trying to inform the House on this terribly important matter.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Interjections from my left will cease. The Minister is entitled to give his answer as he chooses, but I have called on Minsters to make their answers shorter. The question of the importance of the answer is not relevant because there are procedures under the Standing Orders whereby a statement can be made by a Minister after Question Time. I call upon the Minster to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I have finished.

page 341

QUESTION

NATIONAL FAMILY POLICY

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Government propose to initiate a national family policy, as urged by members of this House and many concerned members of the public and as now recommended by the Royal Commission on Human Relationships? Will the Government use the concept of family impact statements as a means of assessing the effect of government decisions on the family?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The platform and philosophy of the Government parties strongly emphasise the importance of the family as a cohesive force in society and as one of the most important elements in society. They emphasise also the need to strengthen its influence. I believe that in recent years we have seen some forces and some moves which almost seem to be designed to weaken its influence. I am quite certain that this is anathema to those who support the Government. The Government does take into account the effect on the family of a number of its policies. Indeed, a number of its policies have been designed quite specifically to enhance the family. I refer to the family allowance scheme, the supporting parents’ benefit and the new policies of” expanding the domiciliary care benefit and helping those families which have a handicapped member, which are designed to relieve the additional burdens on the parents of handicapped children so that their financial costs will not be greater than those of parents who have normal children. I instance those policies to emphasise the importance the family does take in our thinking and the development of our policies. It certainly will continue to do so.

The 131 recommendations of the Commission on the family situation will receive particularly keen examination by the Government and, I hope, also by the public at large. Honourable gentlemen will be aware that I have already said that we want the public to express its views on the report. We also want honourable gentlemen in this House and in another place to express their views on the report. I think that the honourable member for Sturt does well to draw attention in particular to those elements of the report designed to enhance the family and the wellbeing and status of the family in Australia. I am quite certain that the spirit of the honourable gentleman’s question will be given effect by the Government.

page 342

QUESTION

AWARDING OF COMPUTER CONTRACT

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I preface it by making the point that he would know of the details being sought in the question I am about to put. Therefore there would be no reason to place the question on the Notice Paper, as he suggested the honourable member for Grayndler should do. I ask: Is it a fact that the Government closed submissions of clarification of specifications for the Australian Bureau of Statistics computer contract on 9 February, some four days short of the deadline of 13 February, as set out in the letter the Prime Minister sent to Mr Moyes of IBM Australia Ltd on 17 January, as well as in the letter sent by Mr Low of the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board seeking clarification on four areas of the tender? Why was the deadline moved forward? Further, is it a fact that IBM submitted the requested clarification of specifications before or on 9 February and that Facom Australia Ltd, the original successful tenderer, had not at that time made a new submission?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman prefaced his question by saying that he hoped I would answer it because he knew that I knew the answer. It almost sounds as though the honourable member knows the answer. I suggest that he place the question on notice.

page 342

QUESTION

SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to a recent Press report that suggests that the Defence Force should procure Grumman Hawkeye aerial surveillance aircraft which would enhance considerably our detection capabilities in the northern part of Australia? I note that, compared with the Minister’s hurried estimate of $3,600m as the cost of surveillance using PC3 Orions, the cost of several E2C Hawkeye aircraft would be small. Can the Minister inform the House whether any consideration has been given to acquiring this type or any other type of aircraft which would fulfil this most important role?

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

– Yes, I have read the Press report and I should like to inform the honourable gentleman that the question of acquiring airborne early-warning aircraft has been considered by the Department. The aircraft to which the honourable gentleman has referred has a very distinct defence role to play. I have asked for an assessment to be made as to whether, in a non-defence surveillance situation, that aircraft would have any role to play. The honourable gentleman has referred to an estimate that I gave to the House last week on the acquisition of Orion aircraft. I gave that figure merely to try to put some perspective into the debate on surveillance. The honourable gentleman has said that the Grumman aircraft is much cheaper than the Orion. It is a magnificent piece of equipment but it comes at a magnificent price. It costs about $40m a copy.

Mr Innes:

– We will have to have a barbecue.

Mr KILLEN:

– We will need to run more than a barbecue to raise that amount of money. The manufacturer has given an illustration of the capability of this aircraft. One operational order given is to detect, track and classify all ships and aircraft in an area out of Darwin and in another area out of Townsville. In order to fulfil the requirement to work from those two areas, with each aircraft on station to be maintained for 90 days, five aircraft would be needed; or for 30 days four aircraft would be needed. I mention those figures not to pre-empt any decision the Government may make with respect to the Permanent Heads Committee but to give some perspective, I trust, to the enormous cost to the nation if we conduct coastline surveillance in an adequate way. I hope that all honourable gentlemen will recognise that. Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to read from a debate -

Mr Uren:

– Of course we never -

Mr KILLEN:

– I do not abuse the patience of this House. A debate on surveillance was conducted in the House of Lords some two years ago. Lord Ritchie-Calder had this to say:

I wonder how many have ever tried to look at the map which demonstrates what 200-mile limits mean. We have the longest coastline in Europe -

That is, Britain- and we are extending that seawards by 200 miles. Taking into consideration the kind of things we are talking about here, a coastline of that length would mean setting up a command such as we had during the war to look after Western approaches.

I think that statement brings into sharper perspective the problems that this country faces.

page 343

QUESTION

KANGAROO SKINS: IMPORT BAN

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Has his Department been consulted in the recent negotiations by trade officials to lift the ban on the importation of kangaroo skins into the United States? If so, what was the view expressed by his Department?

Mr GROOM:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

– It is true that my Department has been involved in that matter. In order to give the honourable member precise details, I will need to check on the facts and I will let him know.

page 343

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving-

That the House (a) condemns the Prime Minister for failing to provide convincing justification for his personal intervention in the tendering processes associated with a replacement computer for the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Trade; and (b) calls on the Prime Minister to table forthwith all relevant papers, documents and files so that a fair and proper assessment can be made by the House of the propriety of actions associated with this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion needs to be in writing.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I find it necessary to move this motion because circumstances associated with -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 78

NOES: 35

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– In seconding the motion, I want to say that the Opposition believes that the Government is running away from the truth in this matter.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the question be now put’. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’ -

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. It is not in order for the Leader of the House to move that the question be put before the seconder of a motion has had the opportunity to speak. The question is then put from the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is correct. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to continue.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Mr Speaker -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will hear the Leader of the House.

Mr Sinclair- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition commenced - (Opposition supporters interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley and the honourable member for Melbourne will remain silent while I hear the point of order.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, you called the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to second the motion. He did so in rising. The motion has therefore been moved and seconded. It was on that basis -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question has not been put from the Chair. Until I put the question from the Chair, which I will not do until the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is the seconder of the motion, concludes, there is no opportunity to move a closure.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, in those circumstances, I move:

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 75

NOES: 35

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– We demand a full discussion on this matter immediately. There is a cover-up on this question of the role of IBM Australia Ltd and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Parliament is entitled to have a discussion on it forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 76

NOES: 35

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put-

That the motion (Mr Hayden’s) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 35

NOES: 76

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 346

MEAT RESEARCH

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

– Pursuant to section 1 7 of the Meat Research Act 1960 I present the annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee 1976-77.

page 346

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled ‘Cost Recovery in Australian Transport 1974-75’.

page 346

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian delegation to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Sixth Session, New York, 23 May to 15 July 1977.

page 346

DEFENCE SERVICES TRUST FUNDS

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 I present the annual reports of the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund, the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund and the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund for the calendar year 1976, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 346

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do. During Question Time yesterday I directed a question to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). In his reply he clearly insinuated that I was unaware that the Federal Government has offered $6m to accelerate the introduction of classification into beef chains. My question related to the cost of classifying each carcass after the system ‘s introduction. Considering that no representative in this House of the Beaudesert and Boonah districts has asked a question in this House on beef since 1 6 November 1 960 1 concede that the question may have taken him by surprise. I assure the House of my awareness of the $6m and, like the producers in my area and elsewhere, I still await an answer to the point I have raised.

page 346

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

– I move:

Mr Hayden:

– About what?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the motion be agreed to.

Mr Hayden:

– We want to know what the statement is about.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question that has been moved by the Leader of the House is:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister making a statement to the House forthwith.

Mr Bryant:

– Can I speak to the motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Not until I have called on somebody to second the motion. I am sorry. The motion by the Minister does not require a seconder, and the Leader of the House is relying on that.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Mr Speaker, the -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Young:

– The Opposition requires to know what matter is being raised? We might have no objection to it. It might be in regard to the matter the Opposition wishes to raise. All we are asking for is an indication of what the statement is about.

Mr Hayden:

– The Prime Minister wants to run this House as a secret society.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Standing Orders prevail. There has been a motion for suspension of Standing Orders and a further motion that the question be now put.

Mr Malcom Fraser:

– I have no objections to telling the honourable gentleman the subject matter of the statement. I have received a communication from Sir John Kerr which I believe I ought to communicate to this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question now is:

That so much of the Standing Oders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister making a statement to the House forthwith.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Speaker–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat. He knows that the closure motion has been put and carried by the House. The matter now before the House is a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 347

SIR JOHN KERR

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– As I just informed the House, a verbal communication was received from Sir John Kerr yesterday.

Mr E C Whitlam:
Mr Hayden:

– That is too big a mouthful for him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Werriwa and the Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-That message was telexed to Australia early this morning. Before I advise the House of the nature of the communication there are some things I wish to say. On 14 July 1977 Sir John Kerr announced his intention to relinquish the office of GovernorGeneral. He made his decision because he believed that the events of 1975 and the position into which he had been forced while serving as Governor-General of Australia had left some scars on the Australian body politic which would be more quickly healed if he stepped down. Sir John protected the Australian people and Parliament according to the law, according to the Constitution and according to his duty as GovernorGeneral. The attempt of the Labor Government to stay in power in defiance of Parliament compelled his proper and inevitable dismissal of that Government. An Executive governing without the sanction of the Parliament is the hallmark, not of a democracy, but of a dictatorship. His difficult decision gave the people the opportunity to vote and uphold the parliamentary system. The people of Australia passed their clear judgment on these events and Sir John’s actions in the election of 1975. History will judge them just as clearly. It will support the actions Sir John Kerr was compelled to take in the extraordinary circumstances in which the Government of the day so reprehensibly placed him.

Australia, as a nation of free people, owes as much to the courage of Sir John Kerr as to any man in our history. Had he not acted as he did, had he not prevented the unconstitutional designs of the last Government being consummated, the shape of Australian democracy would have been twisted and distorted. Sir John’s action was opposed by a hostile and bitter minority. Division was caused by the statements of the then Leader of the Opposition, by Senator James McClelland and other members of the Labor Party who sought to make the GovernorGeneral a scapegoat for their own actions. Because of this unjustified bitterness the office of Governor-General became a matter of national controversy. Sir John recognised this, as we all did. He believed he could best serve Australia by standing aside, by allowing another to serve as Governor-General. This he did. His action was applauded.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I have already received the information that a certain comment that was made earlier today in Question Time was heard by many listeners. I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that that does nothing for the decorum of the National Parliament. Continual interjections while the Prime Minister is making a statement also detract from the decorum of the House. I am sure all honourable members would not want that to occur. I ask that the right honourable gentleman be heard in silence.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle will remain silent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, one advantage of the fact that the people outside can hear the proceedings of this House is that it allows them to understand the nature of the Australian Labor Party. Sir John’s action was applauded. I believe that his action was right and that it contributed to our nation’s healing process, to a return to normalcy. In this Parliament two days ago I drew attention to Sir John’s long and notable career of public service and to the fact that both as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and as GovernorGeneral he would have been able to devote more of his life to serving Australia had not most unusual events intervened.

At the time of Sir John ‘s resignation he said he looked towards new fields of constructive activity. It was clear that he still wished to serve this country in some other capacity where he could serve energetically but out of the public gaze. Recognising Sir John ‘s desire to continue serving Australia, I, after consultation with senior colleagues, offered him on behalf of the Government the opportunity to do so. This became possible after the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) wrote to me in February advising that in his judgment the Australian diplomatic posts at Los Angeles, Bombay and the United Nations Educatonal Scientific and Cultural Organisation should be re-opened. As a result of that advice from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and after consultation, the Government decided to offer to Sir John Kerr the post of Ambassador to UNESCO. The Government took this step in the firm belief that Sir John Kerr would fill the post with honour and as ably as any man available from within or without the Public Service. The Government believed that, having served this nation honourably, Sir John should not be cast aside, relegated to the shadows, simply because he was forced by the Government of the day to make a difficult decision. The Government believed that he had earned the right to serve this nation quietly, at peace with himself, at peace with the nation, at peace with his family.

There were people in this community who were determined that this should not be so. Since his appointment as Ambassador to UNESCO the attacks on him in the Parliament and outside it have been renewed. Sir John Kerr, once having discharged his duty to the nation under the most difficult circumstances, has no wish to continue as the centre of public dispute, making it impossible for him and his family to live the normal life to which we are all entitled. An ambassador at UNESCO trying to carry out his functions under these conditions would find it impossible to discharge the responsibilities of his office. Mr Speaker, I inform the House that I have today received a formal message from His Excellency Sir John Kerr who was today to have commenced duty as Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. Sir John has informed me that he feels, with great regret that he cannot take up this post. I read to the House the message that I have received:

My dear Prime Minister,

I have become aware since arriving in Paris of the attacks that have been made upon me and upon the Government as a result of my appointment as Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. These attacks have been made in the Parliament, under Parliamentary privilege, by members of the Opposition Parties and they have also been made in various branches of the media.

I am bound to say that the virulence of these attacks and their unfairness has shocked me. I have to contemplate serving in this appointment in the face of them, and possiblyperhaps likely- their continuation.

There is no doubt that in these circumstances, my ability successfully to undertake the work of Ambassador to UNESCO would be severely impaired. For most of the time I should be absent from Australia and, holding an Ambassadorial appointment, be unable to reply in the way that I would wish and to overcome them as I believe I did during my term as Governor-General. Beyond this, I have had to consider whether the purpose that led me to leave the Governor-Generalship earlier than the normal term will be defeated if controversy over tins new appointment continues.

As you know I felt that by leaving the office of GovernorGeneral when I did there would be an opportunity for remaining wounds to heal and controversy to die down. The importance of the Governor-Generalship and its protection stand high in my objectives. My consideration of all these matters has led me to the conclusion that I should ask to be relieved from taking the post of Australian Ambassador to UNESCO in which I would have begun duty today.

I believe that there is too much at risk, greatly as the position would have attracted me personally, and much as I feel I would have been able to contribute to Australia’s interests with UNESCO.

There is a further reason which concerns me in the decision I now make. That is the feelings of my wife and family, who with me have had to withstand the vilification and attack for pan of my term as Governor-General, and now in prospect through a term as Ambassador to UNESCO. They with many others have stood by me without question through all that has happened. I am not prepared to demand more of them. I am not prepared to subject them to this further trial by innuendo and falsehood, even though my personal instinct is to stand firm and make certain once again that this tactic of persecution fails.

Prime Minister, I trust that you will understand the considerations that have led me to this decision. I appreciate the support I have had from the Government and your desire to allow me to continue to serve Australia in public office.

My decision, however, is made. It is with sadness and regret that I inform you of it.

Yours sincerely,

JOHN KERR

Mr Speaker, I can only deplore the actions that led to this decision. The bitterness of the attack, especially in another chamber, since Sir John left the protection of the office of Governor-General, has shown that the Labor Party still blame him, when in logic and in justice, they should be blaming themselves. They are still seeking to find a scapegoat for their own misdeeds. The Labor Party’s refusal to allow Sir John to serve his country in peace has been despicable; their actions and statements on this matter have served only to discredit themselves as has their behaviour in this Parliament this morning.

There have been some who have sought to confuse the high purpose of this man with the remuneration he would have received in the new post. If this is to be a point of principle, it should equally have been applied to appointments such as that of Senator Murphy to the High Court, and Mr Barnard to an ambassadorship or to any aspirant to the International Court of Justice. The principle of taking a full salary while retaining their pension was established by the previous Labor Government. It is plain that this itself is not the major matter in dispute.

If there are others who believe Sir John’s actions in 1975 to have been proper and necessary, but who now want to pass him by, who want to forget he ever existed and deny him the possibility of service, I can only ask them to ask themselves how much justice, how much fairness there is in that view.

By his decision, Sir John leaves public life. A long and distinguished public career is thus ended. I respect his decision and I cannot argue with it. To be an ambassador, constantly pilloried, constantly in the public glare, who had his family placed under intolerable stress, was something that he did not want; he deserved better.

I feel shame for those events which led to the decision he has had to make. I expected less meanness, more generosity and more understanding of a person who only wanted to serve Australia. I can only hope that all Australians will show Sir John the decency and respect in his retirement that his great integrity and courage in public office have earned him. Sir John Kerr can hold his head high as he leaves the public arena he has served so faithfully and so well.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

by leave- Just as the appointment of Sir John Kerr as Australian Ambassador to United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation was not greeted with relish in the community, his resignation is not greeted with sorrow. Sir John Kerr became a symbol of division and mistrust in Australia. But what must be recognised is that the irreparable damage which has been done to the high office of GovernorGeneral in this country was not so much his doing but the doing of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Prime Minister is the guilty man in all of the arrangements which have been associated with the lowering of the prestige, the influence and the public credibility of the very important office of Governor-General.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the term ‘guilty’ with reference to the Prime Minister. It should not be used in relation to any member of the House.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘guilty’ and substitute the words ‘responsible for’. The question that crossed my mind as I listened to the Prime Minister was: Did the Prime Minister speak once again in that conspiratorial way with Sir John Kerr in the last few days? Did he speak to him in the wake of the discussion which took place in this Parliament earlier and which was the source of so much critical comment by the media of this country. Just as the appointment of Sir John Kerr had been the cause of so much critical comment by the Australian media, what is transparent is that this is the second time that Sir John Kerr has been forced to resign by the Prime Minister.

We must not lose sight of the irreparable damage which has been done to the office of the Governor-General by the quite inexcusable actions of the Prime Minister. He has brought that office into the gravest disregard in the community. Much more than 40 per cent of the Australian community is irrevocably alienated from holding any regard or respect at all for that office. That is most unfortunate because the present incumbent is a man who enjoys a very high regard personally in that office. But the damage has been done.

Let me remind honourable members of the nature of that damage. Important principles have been shattered. It is quite improper that a Governor-General should be put into the position where it can be seen or at least suspected that he stood to gain some sort of reward if he were prepared to be accommodating to a rather demanding Prime Minister. That is the way in which the situation is seen by so many people. The fact is that the Governor-General receives an extremely generous pension as do members of the judiciary and for a very sound reason: On completion of his term of office, as is the case upon completion of the term of office of members of” the judiciary, it is expected that they will be separated from any of the decision making processes which happen in this country. That is they must maintain their impartiality and must be seen to maintain that impartiality even through their retirement.

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There are too many interjections coming from my left. I ask the honourable member for Shortland to remain silent.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is quite improper that an exGovernorGeneral, subsequent to service as Governor-General, should accept an inferior or subordinate position serving in the Public Service, serving below people from whom, as Governor-General, he should have maintained his separateness. This is especially so in regard to the Public Service and, I believe, in many respects to the Ministry. The Governor-General has an important role in authorising actions by government, by signing Executive Council Minutes. It is a proper standard that any action proposed in Executive Council Minutes should be consistent with the authority of government, consistent with the laws of the land. I recall some occasions when Governors-General have raised queries- for instance, Sir Paul Hasluck- about the consistency of proposals outlined in Executive Council Minutes and the law of the land, the authority of government. The crux of my concern is the way in which the role of GovernorGeneralship has been lowered in its esteem in the community by the Prime Minister, has become the focus of mistrust generally by the public and apparently has been made by him in the crudest and most vulgar sense as nothing more than an extension of the political patronage system. To all intents and purposes the President of the Liberal Party could sit out at Yarralumla, such is the regard the public now has for this office as a result of the Prime Minister’s actions. It is the Prime Minister who is the offender in this matter. It is the Prime Minister who has done irreparable damage in the community to the office of Governor-General.

The Prime Minister suggested that in 1975 the Government of the day placed the GovernorGeneral in a reprehensible position, forcing him to dismiss that Government. The simple fact, which he has forgotten, is that the Government of that period had at least seven weeks Supply with which to conduct the affairs of Government. I am not canvassing the issue of the conventions which are so easily shattered and destroyed by a man of the Prime Minister’s character; I am just talking about a simple practical fact, namely, that the government of the time had at least seven weeks Supply lawfully available to it to conduct the affairs of this nation.

It was quite clear at that time that several members of the Opposition parties in the Senate were wavering in their opposition to the course of action upon which the Prime Minister had set himself. They regarded it as quite improper that the lawfully elected government of the country, which is situated in this House and not in the Senate, was being thwarted in its legitimate expectations of passing the Budget, of obtaining further Supply, to administer the affairs of this nation. Given a period of time such as thatseveral weeks- it is quite conceivable that some of the honourable senators who were wavering in their attitude, several of whom had firmly stated their opposition to the course of conduct or misconduct, as one should properly say, on the part of the Prime Minister, would have followed the logical extension of their opposition and not persisted further with the obstructionism of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has done so much damage to the conventions of proper conduct in the parliamentary system of this country.

Let me dwell for a few seconds on the conventions of proper conduct. Not everything can be enacted; not everything can be laid down in rules of proper conduct and guidelines for proper behaviour. If our system is to operate properly, certain aspects of it must be fulfilled by the common sense and sense of propriety of people in responsible positions. I say very clearly and forthrightly that the Prime Minister is not the sort of man that we in the Opposition feel we can trust. We feel uneasy with him. We feel uneasy about the Prime Minister having a lot of authority. We feel uneasy about the way in which he likes to assume authority. We feel uneasy about the way in which he likes to deport himself when authority is available to him. There are so many qualities about the Prime Minister which, when taken in conjunction with his record in this House as a person who walks clumsily and destructively over conventions which are necessary to make this system function properly, not only leave us uneasy but also leave a great proportion of the Australian community uneasy and mistrustful of his presence.

The Prime Minister says that the nation owes Sir John Kerr a great deal. For what does it owe him a great deal? For dividing society, for embittering the people, and for fostering suspicion and mistrust in the community? It is true that the Prime Minister owes him a great deal. That is not an issue which is in contention any longer. Not even the most conservative media in this country would believe otherwise.

I conclude with the questions I asked earlier: Has the Prime Minister been in touch with Sir John Kerr in the last few days? Is this the second occasion on which we have seen Sir John Kerr forced to resign in rather ignominious circumstances because of the intercession of the Prime Minister? I repeat what I said earlier: The appointment of Sir John Kerr to UNESCO was certainly not greeted with relish by the Australian community. His resignation will not be greeted with any sorrow either.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER (Wannon-Prime Minister)- Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to answer one of the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden).

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Prime Minister seeks my indulgence and I grant it.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Sir John Kerr initiated a call to a senior officer in my Department. I have not spoken with him.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– How can we believe you?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will withdraw that remark.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I withdraw that remark; but on the performance of the Prime Minister in recent years one can never take any notice of what he says.

page 351

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

Mr SPEAKER:

-Pursuant to Standing Order 1 8, 1 lay on the table my warrant nominating the following honourable members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees: The honourable members for Chifley, Scullin, Banks and Cowper.

page 351

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The recessed state of the Australian economy.

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 WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Opposition has raised this matter of public importance for discussion today because the recession in this country, which has been continuing for almost three years, is a matter of enormous importance to this Parliament and this country. It is of particular importance given the fact that various Government spokesmen are conducting a campaign of trying to delude the Australian public into believing that in fact there is now no such recession and that the recession is well behind us. In the first sitting week of the Parliament and on the first business day of the Parliamentlast Wednesday- three key government spokesmen made such claims. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) said: the Government rejects at the outset of this parliamentary term the notion that the Australian economy is in any kind of recession.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch), when addressing the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, referred to ‘the economic recession from which we have been emerging over the past two years’. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), who represents the Treasurer in the Senate, said: . . . under the overall money management plan of this country we have achieved, together with the balance of payments, a rectification of the recession which occurred some four years ago.

So there we have three clear statements on the economy by Government spokesmen who are trying to convey the impression that the recession is well behind us. This attempt by the Government is in the face of completely contrary evidence. The fact is that the recession is very much with us. There is a welter of evidence to show that that is the case. Indeed, on the very day that these three senior Government spokesmen proclaimed the non-existence of the recession, the Australian Statistician published building statistics for the December quarter which showed that the number of dwellings under construction at the end of December was at the lowest level for six years. The next day he published factory production statistics which showed a further decline. Two days later Chrysler Australia Ltd announced a massive and unprecedented loss of $27m for the year 1977.

These daunting statistics would seem to me to meet the broad definition of the word ‘recession’ as defined in the Oxford Dictionary, namely, ‘a slump in trade’. Indeed, there is a mass of evidence available to demonstrate that Australia is well and truly in a state of recession or even depression. The Penguin Dictionary of Economics defines the word ‘depression’ as ‘that state of the economy in which men and machinery remain unemployed persistently, as compared with a recession during which unemployment is of short duration’.

On that basis we could well say that we are still in the midst of a depression. The rate of unemployment is not only increasing continuously- it is now in excess of 7 per cent- but also has been well above historic levels for more than three years. Unemployment is indeed the most obvious indicator of recessional depression. It is almost unbelievable that at a time of record unemployment- it is the highest for 40 yearsthis Government’s key economic spokesmen should be so brazen as to proclaim the nonexistence of the recession as though, by declaring it not to exist, they can dismiss the problem. This Alice in Wonderland approach displays an extraordinary contempt for the Australian people. Having just won an election on a campaign replete with untruths and misrepresentations, the Government apparently believes that the Australian people will swallow anything. This time it has gone too far.

I ask the House to consider the evidence available on the state of the economy and then to assess where the truth resides. The number of registered unemployed has increased by more than 100,000 in the past two years and now stands at more than 7 per cent of the work force.

The number of wage and salary earners is smaller now than it was 2 years ago. Private enterprise has 53,000 workers fewer than it had 2 years ago. The Australia and New Zealand Bank Ltd’s index of factory production as at the end of December was at the lowest level for any December since 1971. The latest survey of manufacturing activity from the Department of Industry and Commerce shows that the capacity utilisation level in the December quarter was only 77 per cent, which is far below full utilisation of capacity. In the building industry, the number of new dwellings approved for the year ended December 1977 was 14 per cent down on the previous year, which represents a very substantial decline in a key indicator of the economy. As for new housing commencements, the number of new dwellings commenced in 1977 was 10 per cent below the number in 1976. The National Director of the Housing Industry Association, Mr Kirkby- Jones, said that there had been a consistent decline in approvals throughout the year, that there was now little uncommenced work in the pipeline, and that there was very serious under-utilisation of the resources of the housing industry. So there has been no end to the recession in that area.

In the motor industry total registrations of new motor vehicles have declined in each of the last two years. In the first seven months of 1977-78 registrations are down 6 per cent on the same period of the previous year. However the appalling state of the motor car industry is better displayed by the state of the motor car manufacturing companies. General Motors-Holden’s Ltd lost $8.4m last year; Chrysler Australia Ltd lost $27m last year; Nissan Motor Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd is reportedly making losses; Repco Ltd’s profit has slumped dramatically in the half year to December; the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd is reputed to be making a loss of up to $ 1 .5m in 1977-78, though that figure has not yet been published. Clearly this very important industry is in a terrible state. Chrysler’s Chairman, Mr Anderson, described 1 977 as one of the worst years ever experienced by the Australian automotive industry.

In December 1977 retail sales were 10.5 per cent higher than in December 1976. But as the inflation rate was 9.3 per cent and the population grew by 1.1 per cent, there was in fact no real growth at all in retail sales per head of population. This is a very important point because the Government itself acknowledged in its 1976 Budget that there could be no economic recovery unless there was a recovery in consumer demand. Clearly there has been no recovery in consumer demand on the basis of those retail sales figures. Another important area of the economy is the rural industry. Farm income is estimated to fall from $ 1,844m in 1976-77 to only $ 1,600m in 1977-78. The index of farm income per establishment is estimated to fall from 90 last year to 73 in this financial year.

Those figures for employment, production and sales are all overwhelming evidence of a sick economy. The only indicators that can give any comfort at all to the Government are the investment statistics and the September quarter national accounts. But on closer examination they provide little reason to conclude that the recession is behind us. The December quarter figures for new capital expenditure by private enterprise show a rise of 6.7 per cent in that quarter and a rise of 14.7 per cent for the year 1977. When one considers that currently there is a very attractive inducement to industry to invest in the form of a 40 per cent investment allowance, which will reduce to 20 per cent after the middle of this year, it is not surprising that investment is high now despite the lack of demand and the very substantial excess capacity to which I have already referred.

Furthermore, this investment is very largely at the expense of jobs- a fact which the Fraser Government itself has acknowledged in the recent national wage case. When discussing the increase in investment, the Government’s advocate, Mr Marks, maintained that it had not been associated with increased output or increased employment. In fact he pointed out that employment had declined. He said:

We say about that that while the incentive afforded by the investment allowance on non-farm plant and equipment has played a role in the pick-up in the investment stated in the past year, the fact is that this investment has been largely channelled into labour-saving devices.

Thus the Government itself claims that the increase in investment is not creating more jobs; rather it is creating fewer. In those circumstances increased investment figures provide little evidence of recovery from recession. The national accounts for the September quarter have been relied on heavily by the Government as evidence of recovery. In fact they only serve to demonstrate the poor state of the economy. Real gross non-farm product rose by 1 .2 per cent in the September quarter and it was hailed by the Government. But for the whole year to September 1977 it rose by only 1.4 per cent which is a very small rate of growth- barely ahead of the increase in population. There was practically no real growth per head of population in the year to September 1977. Past experience has also shown that it is quite dangerous to place much reliance on the figures of the national accounts for one quarter especially as they are sometimes subject to substantial revision in later quarters. The analysis for the whole year is a much more reliable indicator of the true state of the economy and on that basis the figures for real gross non-farm product offer little cheer.

Nor are the immediate prospects for improvement very high. In February the Metal Trades Industry Association put a submission to the Crawford study group. On page 2, in the preface to its submission, the association stated:

MTIA is deeply concerned at the present recessed state of large sectors of manufacturing industry and the consequent high unemployment which now exists.

So clearly it is concerned about the recession in its area of activity and does not accept the Government’s claim that there is in fact no recession. It is interesting to note that whilst the MTIA said that to the Government, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) told the Association at its annual general meeting last Wednesday that there is in fact no recession. The Association could not possibly have believed what he told it at that time. The MTIA went on to stress that the problems of manufacturing industry will continue until effective policies are developed to redress the situation. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited publication Business Indicators contains figures on the index of economic activity, which is the only such index published in Australia. The latest publication for February 1978 shows a level for December 1977 which is the lowest for any month since December 1971. These figures show clearly that there is a very substantial recession in Australia. It is ludicrous of the Government to claim otherwise. In discussing the future, the publication stated in its opening remarks that:

More than three and a half years since the 1973-74 boom in economic activity, the pattern of economic recovery in Australia remains uneven and subdued, with future prospect clouded by potentially incompatible pressures.

So clearly the ANZ Bank is pessimistic about the future of this country, and rightly so, given all of the developments to this stage. An additional factor which must also be taken into account with regard to the future of the Australian economy is the impact of the turndown in activity in the rest of the world. Our exports of iron ore and coal to Japan will undoubtedly be reduced significantly in both volume and value as that country’s steel industry is dramatically reducing its output. Our own steel exports have already been hit by dumping duties imposed by the European Economic Community. A continuance of the world recession will have grave implications for all our export industries and the economy generally. It is imperative that policies that will arrest current trends and promote economic expansion are adopted on an international scale. In this connection the recent comments of the Prime Minister to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting, when he reportedly attacked advocates of expansionary policies and was especially critical of the United States for adopting such policies, are the very opposite to what is in Australia’s interest. It is very much in our interest for the rest of the world to recover but our Prime Minister’s advice would, if adopted, prevent any such occurrence. That demonstrates just how totally removed from reality this Government has become.

In summary, it is clear that the Australian economy is very much in recession and is likely to remain so despite the extraordinary claims to the contrary by Government spokesmen. That is not to say that there will not be some increase in total output. Some factors that will promote some slight improvement are operating- but nowhere near enough to prevent unemployment rising further during 1978. The ballooning of the deficit, the action of various States in using reserves to expand public works activity and the recent tax cuts will all assist, but they will be nowhere near enough. The increase in the deficit through reduced receipts and increased expenditure in part reflects the worsening of the economy, with income tax receipts falling below estimate and unemployment benefits rising above budgeted levels because unemployment is higher than was anticipated. Also the deficit increase is in the context of a restricted rate of growth in the money supply which is well below the Budget target rate, and that restricted money supply is stifling the economy.

The States’ use of their reserves is a once only exercise. Once they are used up the States will have to reduce expenditure or increase taxes, either of which will depress the economy. The income tax cuts will increase disposable income and help to raise the overall level of demand but the benefit will be reduced greatly by using only half tax indexation in the middle of this year and by the biased nature of the tax cuts. The fact is that the top 10 per cent of taxpayers will receive 42 per cent of the tax cuts in 1978-79 and 12 per cent of taxpayers- some 650,000 low income earners- will actually pay more tax than if the tax cuts had not been introduced but full tax indexation had been adhered to. The concentration of the tax cut benefit on high income earners is inconsistent with policies to promote recovery because such people have a lower marginal propensity to consume than lower income earners and they also spend a higher proportion of their incomes on imported luxuries and overseas trips, neither of which promotes economic recovery in this country. Total real disposable income, which is a key factor in determining the level of consumer demand, is also being adversely affected by the Government’s wages policy. One of the worst aspects of the Government’s wages policy is that if it were pursued to the full it would drastically reduce disposable income and thereby greatly inhibit economic recovery. The abandonment of a sustainable wages policy which is implied would also mean, if we reach a stage of economic recovery, that we would be back to the wages scramble that we had in 1974 and all that that implies for economic troubles.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– What a doleful recital of events we have just heard from the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), the Opposition spokesman on economic affairs. He can play with words- but I do not intend entering into a contest in semantics with the Opposition spokesman. I submit that albeit there is some slack in the economy- I do not deny that- there has been a significant increase in activity in the economy overall during the two years of the Fraser Government.

Mr Hurford:

– What is your evidence?

Dr EDWARDS:

– We have been getting the settings right for the renewed growth and recovery of the economy. ‘What evidence’, the honourable member for Adelaide asks. I would refer to the broadest indicator that is available in this matter- the gross national product, nonfarm product- which stands some five per cent and more above the level when this Government assumed office in December 1975. That followed two years of stagnation and standstill under the Government which the honourable member supported. The situation is vastly superior to thatand even to the froth and bubble of late 1973 and 1974 which set the conditions for the disastrous wage explosion of 1974 to which I will return. I submit that this Government is getting the settings right for the economy and the economy is on track towards sustained economic recovery and renewed growth with stability.

As would be expected, the Opposition has dwelt on certain statistics selectively chosen. I suggest that the Opposition should stand back and take a wider look at the situation and at the broad streams of total demand. As to consumption, I quote an independent commentator, W. D. Scott and Co., which says:

The rate of retail sales of goods (excluding motor vehicles), in the December quarter of 1977 was quite satisfactory. The increase over the September quarter was about 0.8 per cent after approximate adjustment for price increases.

It goes on to say that this is in line with expectations. I do not blink the fact that a difficulty exists in the motor vehicle industry. The Government is looking at that. The other mainstream of demand is investment expenditure, and in that area, despite the comments of the honourable member for Gellibrand, the figures speak for themselves. There can be no doubt as to how investment expenditure built up strongly in the September quarter last year and again in the December quarter. Particularly significant is the emerging strength of investment in building and construction other than housing, which was up 28 per cent in the recent December quarter on 12 months earlier. When we talk about investment spending in New South Wales, we have to realise that investment planning there has to cope with the dead hand of the Wran Labor Government. Its attitude, epitomised by the proposal to revoke the mining rights of Coal and Allied Industries at the Warkworth coal deposit, is a factor that this Government has to cope with in trying to set its overall economic policy for Australia.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– That was well said too.

Dr EDWARDS:

-Indeed. But that investment spending is strong cannot be gainsaid by the honourable member for Gellibrand. I particularly point to the veritable surge of investment in the mining sector. In the December quarter last the total of investment spending stood some 97 per cent above what it was in the same quarter a year earlier.

Above all, inflation has been brought down. The 2.3 per cent CPI increase in the December quarter last gave a 9.3 per cent inflation rate for the calendar year 1977, the first calendar year increase below 10 per cent since 1972. It is there now on the board. During the recent election campaign the Opposition, and particularly its now Leader, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), knowing it to be wrong, constantly asserted that the rate of inflation was greater than 13 per cent. There it is on the board- a 9.3 inflation rate for the calendar year 1977. Getting inflation down is the prime requisite for a strengthening of the momentum of the recovery later this calendar year.

The Opposition continually calls for some form of artificial stimulus. What we have been doing in effect is stimulus. We have been setting the stage for the greatest, the most pervasive stimulus of all, namely, the reduction of interest rates. That is a stimulus to consumer spending, especially on durables, and that will have important implications for the motor vehicle industry. It is a stimulus to housing. The honourable member for Gellibrand correctly referred to statistics of commencements and approvals. But the important factor there is the strong rise in housing finance in the September quarter which was maintained into the December quarter. That will very soon be carried through into increased activity in that sector. Again the reduction in interest rates is a stimulus to investment as indeed is reflected in the statistics I have already cited. It is reflected, for instance, in a statement by Mr Zeidler, the Chairman of ICI Australia Ltd. He recently wrote to members and, among other things, drew attention to his address to the shareholders of ICI. He wrote:

You will note from my address that we are stepping up our rate of investment in new plants and feel encouraged by Government policies and improving economic conditions to plan for steady growth ahead.

Mr Cadman:

– It is reflected in many other areas, too.

Dr EDWARDS:

– Such views are very widespread throughout Australia, but the Opposition would do its best to undermine this growing confidence of Australians both as consumers and investors. I repeat that reduced interest rates are an important stimulus for new investment now and for development in the years ahead. We will carry that matter through. The honourable member for Gellibrand also cast gloom on the balance of payments position. A strong balance of payments is a condition for achieving this stimulus, and the fact is that the current account has strengthened quite markedly. In the three months to January, the current account deficit totalled $425m after a deficit of $591m in the preceding months. Underpinning that outcome exports have increased and imports have declined reinforcing the increase in domestic demand and production.

It is true that unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, remains high. We are as concerned about that as the Opposition. But the position has had to get somewhat worse in order to get better. I want to stress that the present condition of slack in the Australian economy has not been due to an ordinary cyclical downturn in economic activity but rather to a situation of relatively high unemployment and inflation, the two factors significantly associated with major elements of imbalance in the economy which were largely the legacy of the Whitlam Government.

They are imbalances which the policies of this Government have been directed towards containing and removing.

Chief among those imbalances is the high Australian cost structure which is contributing particularly to the difficulties in manufacturing to which the honourable member referred. That high Australian cost structure stems primarily from the wage explosion of 1974, aided and abetted by the then Government. Real wages in that year rose 10 per cent- four to five years’ normal growth rolled into one year. I may be accused of harking back a long way when I refer to what happened in 1 974 but the increase in real wages, as conceded by Bob Hawke, amongst others, was the equivalent to four to five years’ normal growth rolled into one year. So we are still now in 1978- that is three years plus after that time- operating within the reach, the impact of that distortion. Of course, the consequence has been that industry has had to adopt every method possible- by additional investment and the re-organisation of production activities- to shed labour. To employ an Australian became about the most expensive thing business can do. So business has adopted every means possible, including reinvestment and re-organisation, as I said, in order to shed labour.

In the medium and long term that will be to the benefit of all Australians because the additional machinery and the new methods will mean higher productivity, increased production per person and increased consumption for everybody. But in the short term it has meant that unemployment, which increased under the previous Government from a figure less than 100,000 people to over 300,000 people, has continued to increase, though much more slowly, than during the period of the previous Labor Government. But as the policies of this Government begin to bite further, the unemployment, which, as I have said, concerns us every bit as much as it concerns honourable members opposite, will decline.

Finally, I refer to those policies not only in the budgetary and monetary areas, but also in what might be referred to as ‘industry policy’. Today the Parliament will be dealing with an important Bill to amend the charter of the Industries Assistance Commission to encourage it to contribute more constructively to the difficulties in the manufacturing area. A new export incentives scheme has been foreshadowed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch). Industrial reseach and development grants are to be upgraded and a totally new look is to be taken at them. I refer also to the activities of the Crawford

Study Group. In these ways the difficulties in the manufacturing area are being met by this Government.

The Opposition no doubt will continue to do its best to pour cold water on the economic situation and to undermine that confidence among Australians, as consumers and investors, which is so vital to strengthening the recovery and putting this country back on the path of strong growth with stability and higher levels of employment for all our people, especially the young. There is no worry about the economic future of Australia. Prosperity, higher standards of living and the achievement of our social purposes are there for us to grasp.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-While Nero fiddles, Rome burns. Where is the Treasurer (Mr Howard)? The Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) sits at the table yet a back bencher seeks to answer very inadequately the points raised in this debate.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. ( Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O ‘H. Giles )

AYES: 70

NOES: 28

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 1.3 to 2.15 p.m.

page 356

QUESTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TOURISM

Motion (by Mr Lynch) proposed:

1 ) That a Select Committee be appointed:

to examine the significance and potential of tourism in the Australian economy and whether it has special features in comparison with other industries, with particular reference to its effects on-

employment,

balance of payments aspects,

the community’s knowledge of Australia and the Australian heritage,

community health and welfare, and

regional development and decentralisation;

to identify the short and long term issues facing the industry in Australia;

to examine the importance of the various modes of transport in the development of tourism to and within Australia;

to examine the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth, State and local governments and the industry in relation to the development and promotion of tourism;

to assess the adequacy and the availability of statistical and other information relating to tourism, and (0 to report on its investigations into these matters and to recommend action that might be taken by the Commonwealth Government or by the Commonwealth Government in co-operation with State and local governments and the tourist industry to alleviate any problems identified by the committee during the course of its investigations.

That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.

That the committee consist of 8 members, S to be nominated by the Prime Minister and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and sit during any sittings or adjournment.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

14) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to the committee ‘s report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of the House of Representatives Select Committees on Tourism appointed in the 30th Parliament.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I do not oppose the motion. As we are about to re-appoint eight very important committees, I ask that we give serious consideration to the servicing of those committees and to supplying them with much greater resources to do their jobs properly. I have been a member of this Parliament long enough to know that to get a point across to the people on the front bench opposite I have to say it long, loud and clear and repeat it ad nauseam. Membership of a parliamentary committee is always an interesting exercise, but, as a challenge, one finds oneself totally devoid of the resources to do the job adequately. Some of the honourable members sitting on the front bench opposite have not had the advantage of serving on these committees. Of course, they have had the advantageto the disadvantage of the country- of being -

Mr Nixon:

– Look at the record.

Mr BRYANT:

-But the Minister for Transport never attended the meetings. I can speak to an informed person in the presence of the Minister for Transport. There is a difference between the resources he has at his disposal as a Minister and the resources available to a committee. Committees are the countervailing force in this Parliament. They are between what one might call the Executive and departmental government. We should pay critical attention to these matters. The committees will have to be given many more resources in the form of staff and other facilities if they are to work effectively. The re-appointment of these eight committees would simply become a charade if that were not done. I ask the Ministery in particular to pay some attention to this matter and to ensure that adequate moneys are appropriated to them in the next Budget. Mr Deputy Speaker, I also ask you, as Chairman of Committees, to apply yourself to ensuring that adequate funds are made available in the next Budget for that to be done.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 357

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY

Motion ( by Mr Nixon) proposed:

1 ) That a Standing Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on:

the main causes of the present high level of the road toll in Australia;

the most effective means of achieving greater road safety in Australia;

the particular aspects of the problem to which those concerned with road safety could most advantageously direct their efforts, and

the economic cost to the community of road accidents in Australia in terms of-

material damage,

loss of man-hours and earning capacity, and

cost of treatment of accident victims

) That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.

That the committee consist of 8 members, S to be nominated by the Prime Minister and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.

That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sitting or adjournment.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence before it and any document presented to it.

That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigations take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

17) That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Select Committee on Road Safety appointed during the 28th Parliament and the Standing Committees on Road Safety appointed during the 29th and 30th Parliaments.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I point out that the Opposition does not oppose the reappointment of any of the standing committees. I state that now to facilitate the business of the House. Each one of these committees was engaged in important work when the last Parliament was rudely brought to a halt without due respect for our system, despite certain things which had been said in Bombay. It is right and proper that the committees should be reappointed to enable them to get on with that work.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Opposition supports the re-appointment of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety. I think it is relevant to make the point that the Opposition believes that it is pointless establishing committees if those committees are simply to be forums for fulminating politicians. The whole purpose of this Committee or any range of parliamentary committees is to provide a mechanism whereby the back bench members of the Parliament can become involved in specific subjects of public interest. No subject is more critical at present than the subject of road safety. I think the House needs to be reminded that every 2’A hours on average an Australian dies on our roads. In those circumstances if there is to be a road safety committee, the Government has a responsibility in establishing that committee to ensure that its recommendations are given effect.

I refer briefly to the record of this Government and the previous one, moreso the previous one from 1975 to 1977, in respect of the recommendations of the Road Safety Committee and in particular in regard to passenger motor vehicle safety. In its report that Committee made 52 recommendations covering matters relating to braking, retreading of tyres, lighting, field of vision, seat belts and child restraints and regulatory controls and authorities as well as accident recording and data collection and analysis. That report was tabled on 2 June 1976-19 months ago. The report of the Committee on heavy vehicle safety was tabled in May 1977. That report contained 28 recommendations on matters relating to braking, steering, tyres, loading practice and loading rating of critical components, truck cabin strength, field of vision, noise, seat belts and under-run barriers as sell as bus frame and design standards.

As I mentioned earlier, it is pointless expending public funds and using up the time of members of the Parliament as well as involving the organisations and individuals who have a genuine concern for road safety in the incurring of considerable expense if the government of the day does not see fit to pick up the recommendations of the Committee. In the report on motor vehicle safety that the Committee presented in June 1976 it recommended, as had Mr Justice Meares’ Expert Group on Road Safety, the establishing of an independent road safety and standards authority. Within weeks of coming to government the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) announced the dissolution of the independent authority along those lines that had been established by the previous Government. So the major recommendation of the Committee was thrown out immediately on coming to office by the present Minister.

A second matter recommended by the CommitteeI shall not deal with the whole 52 recommendationsrelated to data collection and accident statistics. In December 1976 the Minister for Transport replied to a question I had asked him relating to what action he had taken in respect of this recommendation. He said:

As the Expert Group on Road Safety also stated in its report of October 197S, insurance offices collect much useful statistical information and there is increasing willingness on the pan of insurance companies to make data available for road safety research.

That was the Minister’s response to a question I had asked about what he had done to implement the recommendations of the Road Safety Committee that the Insurance Commission be asked to obtain relevant information from insurance companies in order to assist in the collation of statistics on road traffic accidents. The Minister went on to say:

However, the Insurance Commission has no authority under its Act to requite insurers to supply these data and such a request would not be connected with the administration of the Act. In the light of this no approach has been made to the Treasurer for the Commission to obtain road safety data.

I asked the Minister a further question a few weeks later in regard to whether he would approach the Treasurer in the light of the deficiency under the legislation for which the Insurance Commission is responsible. I asked him whether he would approach the Treasurer to arrange an amendment to the legislation. He replied in February of last year. I ask the Minister, as he is now at the table, whether he has taken any further action since replying to my question. He has not advised me of any and I have not seen any reports to the Parliament to indicate that further action has been taken. His reply is February of last year was:

It is considered preferable to seek the co-operation of insurers for work on specific projects, rather than seek statutory returns. Information sought can thus be designed for the particular study in mind. The honourable member will recall that insurance companies advised the Standing Committee that they were willing to help in this way.

I ask again: What has the Minister done apart from rejecting the recommendation of the Expert Group on Road Safety and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety? It is wasting the time of members and wasting the taxpayers’ money to go through an exercise of gathering information and then to have the Government reject that information. If a committee system is to be effective the recommendations of committees must be given due weight. The Government of the day must undertake to consider the recommendations with a view to implementing them. The Minister for Transport- I do not want to be personal because he is only part of the Government- pays lip service to the critical issue of road safety in Australia today.

Embodied in the establishment of the road safety and standards authority was to have been the construction of testing facilities for motor vehicles at Albury-Wodonga. Leaving aside the decentralisation benefits of that activity, I suggest that that very important facility would have added to the information available on improving road safety. I understand that General MotorsHolden Ltd and Ford are the only companies that have their own adequate testing facilities. The facility at Albury-Wodonga could have been used by other motor companies. It could have earned revenue for the Government which would help to offset the costs of road safety supervision in this country and it would have been a very worthwhile addition to the information available to and the work carried out by the Government and by the Parliament in the interests of road safety.

Whilst there is much talk about road safety and about the ravages of alcohol it seems to me that honourable members on the Government side are more concerned about drugs than about this very vital matter of the consumption of alcohol by drivers. Without doubt it is the most crippling disease and the most dangerous practice that exists in this country today. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, every 2Vi hours a person dies on Australian roads. In 50 per cent of deaths involving single vehicle accidents alcohol is a major contributing factor. In 80 per cent of the cases of drivers under 25 years of age alcohol is a major contributing factor.

I hope that the Minister will make a report to the Parliament, or he may care to address a letter to the Chairman of the Committee, which would probably be a more formal way of doing it, outlining what steps he has taken as Minister to implement the 52 and the 28-80 in all- recommendations of the last two reports from the Committee. Perhaps the Minister will give an assurance to the Parliament that the Committee, when established, will be accorded some respect and importance by the Government and that adequate staffing arrangements and adequate funds will be made available to ensure that the Committee is able to carry out its very effective work. In closing I want to thank those members of the Road Safety Committee with whom I have worked in the past few months for their cooperation and assistance. I hope that I will be joining them again in a few weeks time.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-Very briefly I want to add some comment to what the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) has said. Probably the most ciritical issue that has occupied the minds of members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, of which I have had the privilege of being Chairman on the last two occasions, is the matter of the establishment of a statutory authority being vested in a group within the Department of Transport which we hope will accept and give effect to the recommendations that are made by the Committee. It is generally agreed that a committee’s work is evaluated on the matter to which it is being applied and how relevant it is to the daily lives of the people involved. We feel that the responsibility of this Committee is extremely critical. We had the experience of a visit to the spinal surgery section of the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney. We saw a whole ward of people there who are absolute vegetables. They were the victims of motor cycle accidents.

Let me come back to the matter of the authority of the particular section of the Department which would administer this responsibility. I point out that very early in the life of the previous Parliament we had discussions with the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) who gave an assurance to the Committee that, although the statutory authority would not be created, there would be vested in this group of people the necessary authority and independence to give effect to our recommendations. The Committee took evidence from bodies such as the Road Trauma Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and many other experts. There was quite a galaxy of stars. I mean that quite seriously. We heard from people such as Dr Michael Henderson and Professor Jobert. Ralph Nader came over from the United States of America to appear before our Committee. We had as a semi-permanent consultant Peter Wherrett of Australian Broadcasting Commission fame.. The Road Trauma Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has come to grips with the human tragedy associated with this problem. At about this time last year an international congress was held here of its related bodies from all over the world. We had here an array of surgeons associated with road trauma. They indicated that it was essential to have a body of people with a lot of muscle to give effect to the demands which result from an inquiry such as ours. If I have the privilege of chairing this Committee again I propose that we should meet the Minister again and discuss in great detail the recommendations that have been made and the manner in which they will be put into effect, with particular reference to the matter of uniformity. It might interest the House to know that we found the lamentable situation that accident reports are different in each State. Thus it is impossible to process and computerise data coming in from all the States. That situation is criminal. It does not do very much to cut down the carnage on the roads. During the previous year something like 3,680 people were killed on Australian roads.

The States must carry the responsibility for not facing up to the fact that, in a simple matter like road accident reports, no two reports from different States are exactly the same. The situation is absolutely lamentable. Surely to goodness State sovereignty should play second fiddle to means of cutting down the carnage on Australian roads. In conclusion let me say that the work of the Committee has been carried out in a non-political way. Members argue things out. It is a very good Committee because the people who serve on it realise their very heavy responsibility. I repeat that, as soon as the Committee gets back into action, whoever its members may be, I am sure that an early discussion will be sought with the Minister to clarify the Government’s approach.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am pleased to associate myself with the comments that were made by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). As a representative of a country electorate I want to draw to his attention the fact that I have noticed that 10 per cent of the population of my electorate live in very much rural areas, but 75 per cent of my constituents under 25 years of age who have died on the roads in Fadden come from that small proportion of the population. Perhaps I, like many members of this Parliament, should be condemned for not having noticed the significance of that fact before, but when one lives in a big city one does not notice things as easily as one does having a different responsibility. I believe that the state of country roads represents a devastating risk to the lives of motorists, both young and old, and I hope that the incoming chairman will pay a lot of attention to the death risk on country roads.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– in reply- I do not want to delay the House but because some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) might be misunderstood outside this place I think it is necessary to put the record straight. Before dealing with them may I say first of all that the Government proposed setting up the Committee again simply because of the good work done by the previous Committee. It is in recognition of that good work and for no other reason that the Government is reestablishing the Committee. I want to congratulate those members of the Committee who worked tirelessly over the last couple of years for the work that they have done. I look forward to the same sense of co-operation in the period ahead.

The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) said that the Committee had not acted politically in any sense but had argued the merits of each case and come to conclusions. I thought it rather a shame that the honourable member for Shortland, in his words to the House, introduced politics to the subject in a party political sense. He demeaned the value of the work of the Committee and the activities of the Committee. He referred to some 52 recommendations, a number of which he enumerated. He has not been doing his job as a member of the Committee if he does not know the procedures that follow those recommendations. A great number of those recommendations have gone before the Safety Design Rules Committee that services the Australian Transport Advisory Council and a great number of them are being introduced, have lead times and are well under way.

It ought to be noted that the motor car of today has changed considerably from that of earlier years as a result of the safety design rules that have been introduced. People do not realise that the knob on the handle has changed, the dashboard has changed and the steering wheel has changed. The motor car is presented in a much safer fashion in order to lessen injury and damage when accidents occur. People ought to take note of the number of changes to motor cars. I will have a statement prepared for the Committee to demonstrate some of the work that has been done. The honourable member for Shortland ought to know these things. He ought to know also of the continuing talks between the Federal and State governments, through the Australian Transport Advisory Council, in which these matters are brought to fruition. He demeans the work of the Committee in not recognising the flow-on that occurs.

Another aspect, one which was raised by the honourable member for Kennedy in a proper sense, was the question of a uniform approach in terms of accident reporting. Again, this matter has been studied by ATAC and its servicing committees and some progress is being made. One of the difficulties I found when this Government was returned to office was that the forced establishment of an independent authority against the wishes of the States in earlier days did nothing to help relationships between the Commonwealth and the States. Fortunately I have been able to heal those differences and with the establishment of the Office of Road Safety, with a very high level and quality of personnel, which I think the Committee will recognise, I look forward to a great deal of successful work being done in the future in the area of road safety.

Mr Goodluck:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to support the Minister -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Franklin will resume his seat. The Minister has closed the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 361

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Motion (by Mr Peacock) proposed:

That a Joint Committee be appointed to consider and report on:

foreign affairs and defence generally, and

such matters as may be referred to the committee-

by the Minister for Foreign Affairs,

by the Minister for Defence, or

by resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the committee consist of 8 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, 6 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, 4 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 3 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

3 ) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 4 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That 7 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee and 3 members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.

That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, appointed in previous Parliaments, relating to any matter on which those committees had not completed consideration.

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered, with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee.

That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

1 6 ) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I will not delay the House long but I would question the combination of the areas of foreign affairs and defence in this Committee. I think it is apparent to all members that the question of defence will be one of the major considerations, financially and otherwise, of this Parliament in the next few years. It will be particularly important financially. At this stage there are two items alone before the Department of Defence and, I would presume, before the Government, which could cost in excess of $4 billion. The Parliament ultimately will be asked to appropriate funds for those purposes. There are alternatives. Consideration and discussion of the actual expenditure of money in the defence area and also the restructuring and reformation of the defence forces will be taking place as a matter of course in the next few years. We are probably, at this stage, entering a period of the greatest change in the structure of the defence forces in this country that has ever taken place. On the world scene we are entering the period of greatest change since the invention of gunpowder.

I think it is worthwhile that this House should consider whether or not defence and the future planning of defence should stand alone. Parliament, preferably this House which is responsible for the appropriation of funds, should have a defence preparedness committee or a defence committeecall it what you will- to examine those items relating to defence as well as a foreign affairs committee to concentrate on that area alone. I know that sub-committees have been formed and that the Committee operates in some areas almost on a dual committee basis but I think this subject matter is of sufficient importance and the ramifications for the future expenditure and structure of the defence forces in Australia are such that a separate committee ought to be formed.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– It is rare for me to offer advice to the House on matters of this kind.

Dr Jenkins:

– Do not be pompous. You are always offering advice.

Mr GRAHAM:

– If the honourable member wishes to submit a bill to Medibank he will not get any reference from me. I wish to support the comments of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) whether he would be kind enough to speak to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in relation to this matter. I hold the view that what the honourable member for Corio has said is correct. Whilst it is true that the Foreign Affairs Department and the Defence Department have enormous areas which overlap a commonality of association, one with the other, it is understood in the processes of government that there should be a Department of Foreign Affairs and a Department of Defence.

In the years during which we in this House have joined them in the committee sense we have become Jacks of all trades and masters of none. We should have people who are prepared to dedicate themselves to a particular function and be expert in that function. It will necessarily mean that if they have interests in other matters they will have to sacrifice them, because only 24 hours in a day are available to all human beings, including distinguished members of the medical profession.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 362

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson) proposed:

1 ) That a Standing Committee be appointed to:

consider any papers on public expenditure presented to the House and such of the estimates as it sees fit to examine;

consider how, if at all, policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the estimates may be carried out more economically;

examine the relationship between the costs and benefits of implementing government programs, and

inquire into and report on any question in connection with public expenditure which is referred to it by the House.

That the committee consist of 6 members to be nominated by the Prime Minister, S members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chairman of the Joint

Committee of Public Accounts or his nominee who is a Member of the House of Representatives.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.

That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution of effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.

That the committee be provided with the necessary staff, facilities and resources.

16) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committee on Expenditure appointed during the 30th Parliament.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-This is a new Committee which was instituted in the last Parliament. In a sense, it is a committee which is the idea of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The idea of this committee had long germinated in the mind of the Prime Minister. The Committee was pleased to be able to function in the last Parliament in the way in which it did.

However, there was one complaint. The Committee had some difficulty as regards the number of members it surrendered from time to time to the front bench. I instance the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), the Minister for Special Trade Representations, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), and the Minister for Productivity, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). They would be too modest to say so themselves, but I am certain that they have raised considerably the standards of the front bench. But at least, as far as I can see, one of them at the moment has the good grace to blush.

The Committee has been enormously successful in carrying out quite a number of inquiries. I merely wish to refer to one alteration in the resolution of appointment of this Committee which will improve its work, compared with that in the last Parliament. I refer to paragraph (7) in which a quorum of the Committee is to consist of three members or more rather than five members or more. This will facilitate the work of the subcommittees of the Committee on Expenditure and will enable more inquiries to be carried out than in the past.

The peculiar power of this Committee lies in its terms of reference. I refer to paragraph ( 1 ) (b) which states that the Committee can: consider how, if at all, policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the estimates may be carried out more economically;

In other words, the Committee can enter into areas involving the method of delivery of the Government’s policies. That gives it a very wide charter and a very wide area of responsibility. At the moment there is an amount of unfinished business to which the Committee has to attend. We hope to continue inquiries into matters such as defence service homes and into the Department of Health which were instituted towards the last months of last year. The Committee has functioned very well. It has only been able to function well because of the goodwill that has applied with respect to the members of the three parties. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) who are in the House at the moment, served on the Committee for a great deal of time. I look forward to the Committee’s success and I am sure that the House will be continually grateful that in 1 976 it set up this Committee for the first time.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-As a member of the Standing Committee on Expenditure since its inception in the last Parliament and having made a decision that when it is set up again I will not serve on it, I think I should make a few comments. The fact that I am not seeking to serve on it again is no criticism of the way in which the Committee has functioned. However, the warning should be given that, because of the type of work done by the Expenditure Committee, if it is to be done properly, there has to be a close examination of matters. I think one should give warning to those honourable members who will serve on this Committee as to the time that is necessary to be spent in meetings of the Committee itself and of the sub-committees. Those honourable members should not have the illusion that it will just be a matter of brief examination of these fields. I think they should be warned of that fact.

I agree with the reduction in the quorum requirement because this will ease the manner of operation of the Committee. It has been well served by the staff appointed to it. However, I make the comment in passing that the Expenditure Committee has added a major factor to the committee system of this House. I believe that some widening of its powers could be used to lessen the number of committees it is necessary for the House to appoint. After two years ‘ experience of the Committee’s operations, I think that insufficient thought has been given to that aspect. I trust that that situation will be reviewed in view of other steps that are being predicted and that, through some changes, the Committee may be an even more effective instrument than I believe the first two years have shown it to be.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 364

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

1 ) That a Standing Committee be appointed to inquire into, take evidence and report on:

the present circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them, and

such other matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people as are referred to it by-

resolution of the House, or

the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.

That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 to be nominated by the Prime Minister and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.

That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs appointed during the 28th, 29th and 30th Parliaments.

19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-One section of the reference which intrigues me a bit- I am not too sure whether it was included in the Committee’s reference in the last Parliament- is paragraph (2) which states:

That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.

I should have thought that the search for cooperation from the States was a laudable enterprise. However, I can think of one State where it is likely to be a very fruitless expedition. I hope that in the considerations of the Committee of which I was a member in the last Parliament- it was established in 1973 while 1 was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs- that the House will not let itself be inhibited in any way and that the Committee members will not be inhibited in any way by the requirement that we recognise the responsibility of the States. In fact the States’ responsibilities run second to the responsibilities of this Parliament.

In 1967 there was a referendum on the issue of Aboriginal affairs. At that time the people of Australia said emphatically that the authority and responsibility for handling Aboriginal affairs in a satisfactory way rested with this Parliament. Most of Australia- to the tune of 90 per centhad said so at the referendum and there is no excuse whatsoever for avoiding our responsibilities. Therefore, I hope that the Committee, with this charter will get on with doing the job, regardless of whether or not the States are doing it.

I make another appeal, as I did earlier, regarding the necessity to strengthen the resources available to this Committee and any of its subcommittees in the work that is done. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is very demanding as far as travel is concerned. Most of the research on communities is carried out at the far ends of this continent. That involves a great deal of travel. It involves a great deal of sacrifice away from one ‘s home and electorate and everything else. I am sure it is time that many more resources were placed at the disposal of members who sit on these Committees regarding the way in which they work, where they go and the kinds of facilities that are available to them individually.

I make the point to the House that I think the time has come when it is now possible to appoint one member to do something on many of these committees. There is no reason why the investigation of some point or other could not be carried out by one member. We are in the habit of appointing tribunals, which seems an odd name to apply to one person who carries out an investigation, or royal commissioners to investigate matters. I know that many of the activities of the previous Committee and certainly one or two of the other committees have been inhibited while we looked for at least three members to go somewhere and hold hearings or carry out an investigation. There is no reason at all why we should not change our Standing Orders in this regard. I hope that Mr Speaker will consider this, allow the Committee to nominate one member to carry out an investigation and ensure that he is adequately serviced with transport and all the rest of it. I hope we will start to loosen up about these matters.

I make the point that I made earlier: I have been a Minister in a first class government which carried out a range of profitable activities for the country. I recognise how much easier it is for a Minister to attend to matters while people apply themselves to the policy side and the research side of parliamentary work. I think it is time we removed that disability from members of committees.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

-I welcome this opportunity to make some brief remarks about the operations of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in the previous Parliament and to welcome the intention of the Government to establish once more as a standing committee of the Parliament the House of Representatives Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The Committee in the last Parliament spent a great deal of its work in the development of its two reports on alcohol problems of Aboriginals. In October of last year the final report of the Committee was produced and tabled in the Parliament. That report contained a number of very important recommendations which, if implemented, would certainly improve the lot of our Aboriginal people generally. I welcomed therefore the notice given in the Governor-General’s Speech that the problems associated with alcohol abuse amongst Aboriginals, to the extent that there is abuse, is a matter of concern of the Government. I give notice that if I have the opportunity to serve on the Committee once more I will be pressing for that to happen.

The Committee will undoubtedly deal with a health reference which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) will refer to the Committee once more. I believe that there is a continuing responsibility on the part of committees to monitor the progress which is being achieved in the implementation of the recommendations they make and previous committees have made. I have no doubt that the Minister is aware of our concern in that regard and that we will see a very prompt response from him, as he has already indicated by his efforts in ensuring that mention was made in the Governor-General’s Speech of the fact that the Committee’s important recommendations are being attended to.

I welcome also the indication given by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) that consideration is being given to enabling members of committees to play a greater role in choosing the advisers that will be available to them. I welcomed the support given to the previous Committee by Departmental representatives and the Speaker in the appointment of our specialist adviser on the health reference, Professor Max Kamien. It is important that committees have available to them people who have experience of the subject under examination and who are able to offer a great deal of support to the committees in developing their ultimate recommendations and in considering with them the material that comes before the committees. There is a need for the committees to be able to recruit staff who have the capacity to be able to help in a specialist way. I think that we have seen from the operations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in the past the way in which specialist advisers can contribute so much to the preparation of reports.

I do not think there would be a more appropriate time than now to say that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs will not have available to it the services of former members of this Parliament. In that regard I mention the Honourable W. C. Wentworth and the Honourable Kim Beazley, who are no longer available to serve as members of the Committee as they are no longer members of the Parliament. I wish to refer to the contributions that those two former Ministers made to the work of the Committee previously. The tasks of those honourable members who are volunteering to work on these committees will have to be much greater than it has been in the past to make up for those who will not be able to serve and who have had this wide experience. That is not to denigrate those honourable members opposite who served previously as Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and whose experience I have observed previously in the work of the Committee. If they are able to offer their services again, I believe that they will be most invaluable to the Committee in its deliberations. I believe that the Committee served a very useful function in the previous Parliament and I believe that it can contribute a great deal towards the welfare of our Aboriginal people in the future.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think it is appropriate that I should speak after the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who was the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in the last Parliament, as I was the Deputy Chairman of that Committee. I do not find myself at variance with anything that the honourable member said. I am glad that he paid tribute to the contributions made to the Committee by former Ministers. It is a unique Committee in that it actually had amongst its membership in the last Parliament three former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs.

While I am dealing with tributes I should mention that the calibre of the secretariat of the CommitteeMr Clive Boorman and his staff- left nothing to be desired. Without putting it in the context of that group of staff members, I make the point that it seems to me that there is something seriously wrong with the system when we recognise the extent to which parliamentarians who are sent to such remote parts of Australia as Katherine, Alice Springs, Darwin and the like will incur additional expenses there whereas when we send the secretariat of such committees to these places we provide them with a much lower rate of remuneration to cover the expenses they incur. It is absurd that members of committees should have their expenses covered to the extent that they do and the members of the secretariat are out of pocket. That situation applies not only to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs but also to many other committees that serve the Parliament. I am saying a word here on behalf of the secretariat staff. I sincerely hope that this matter will receive consideration.

Equally anomalous, of course, is the fact that when such a committee travels long distances in aeroplanes- it is not at all infrequent for such committees to go to the Northern Territory and places like that- the members of Parliament sit in the first class seats and the staff members are relegated to the economy class seats at the back of the aeroplane. One does not hear complaints from staff members about this kind of thing, but one often hears them from members of the committee who find that they are unable sensibly to utilise the time spent in travelling in aeroplanes with staff members. It is very important to be able to sit with the secretary or the assistant secretary of a committee and plan the line of interrogation upon which one might embark when the committee meets to hear evidence.

The history of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee has been such that it has been required to look into areas of specialised investigation. For example, the inquiry into Aboriginal alcohol problems, which was concluded and reported upon to the Parliament I think, in November of last year, actually commenced on 14 April 1976. So the Committee inquired into the reference on Aboriginal alcohol abuse for more than 20 months. The inquiry involved hearing 205 witnesses and receiving 139 submissions. Obviously the inquiry was extremely comprehensive.

I make the point that this eccentricity, this great specialisation, can be done only at the expense of other things with which the Committee could be regarded as having a prerogative to deal. The motion which we are considering deals with the Committee taking evidence and reporting on ‘the present circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them’. Yet for two years- for the life of a parliament- the Committee was steered off into inquiring into that very important but only sectional facet of Aboriginal welfare. There are very many other matters with which it can deal. I believe it is important that the new Committee moves very quickly into an overseeing role and finds out what the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is about, how big is its domain, and what are the parameters of its problems. After all, the previous Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs was never given the opportunity to look, for example, at Aboriginal hostels or housing generally, the Aboriginal Loans Commission, Aboriginal legal problems, the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service or Aboriginal enterprises. There are many facets of Aboriginal affairs.

I say to the Minister, who has been most cooperative in the work of this Committee, that he should have regard to the likelihood of the Parliament becoming more effective if that Committee were to be given an overseeing role rather than being directed too early into a specialised area. I imagine that the Committee will be tidying up some unfinished business. The previous Committee had only just started its inquiry into Aboriginal health. I have no doubt that that inquiry could easily last for a period in excess of 12 months. It might last for as long as two years. Committees travel to remote parts of the country at considerable expense. It can be very time consuming also. I suppose that many honourable members in the chamber would not know that almost every parliamentary recess period is taken up by committee members travelling to far off places. There would be merit in conducting a concurrent inquiry, so that if a committee lands in a certain community it can look at problems apart from those of, say, alcohol. It is absurd not to have a good objective look at Aboriginal education, Aboriginal housing and all the other problems at the same time. I commend to the Minister the idea that concurrent references from him might be taken on board by the Committee.

I wish to mention only one other matter. While the Committee was dealing with its alcohol inquiry it also took on the inquiry into Aboriginal land rights. This Committee consists of eight members, and it was apparent that it could not handle both of those investigations. So a Senate committee of inquiry was appointed. I wonder if there might be some merit in this Standing Committee becoming a joint standing committee so that a larger number of members and senators might be deployed over the wide spectrum of matters which obviously need a great deal of investigation. This is most deserving and extremely important work. The Committee has had the good fortune to be ably led by its Chairman, backed up by the staff, and to be given every indication of confidence and co-operation from the Minister. I extend my best wishes for the continued success of the Committee when the new members are appointed, following the passing of this motion.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– in reply- I wish to take this opportunity to join with the Chairman of the Committee in the last Parliament, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), in expressing my thanks and the thanks of this House for the work done over many years by Mr W. C. Wentworth and Mr Kim Beazley who are two former members of the Standing Committee. Their interest was both academic and practical. Added to that interest was their great parliamentary experience extending over some 30 years. They brought all those qualities to bear in this particular and very special area of Aboriginal affairs. On behalf of the Government and of the Parliament, I acknowledge the debt which we owe to the work done by those two gentlemen. Their absence no doubt will be felt, but I am confident that there will be other members of this House who will be prepared to step in and either extend an interest that they have had or take a special interest in this area. I look forward to working closely with the Committee in the future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 367

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Motion (by Mr Ellicott) agreed to:

1 ) That a Joint Committee be appointed to:

examine and report on all proposals for modification or variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19 November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for the Capital Territory, and

b) examine and report on such other matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to the committee-

) by the Minister for the Capital Territory, or

by resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the committee consist of 10 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Prime Minister, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

14) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

page 368

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Motion (by Mr Ellicott) proposed:

1 ) That a Joint Standing Committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new and permanent Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto.

That the committee reconsider and, as necessary, amend the recommendations of the former Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House contained in its report dated March 1970, which when revised shall be used as the basis of the construction of the new and permanent Parliament House, unless both Houses resolve to vary any recommendations or have any recommendation re-considered by the committee.

That the committee also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1 974 as may be referred to it-

by the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, or

b ) by resolution of either House of Parliament.

That the committee consist of:

The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

The Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957;

6 Members of the House of Representatives, 3 of whom shall be nominated by the Prime Minister and 3 by the Leader of the Opposition, and

6 Senators, 3 of whom shall be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 3 by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be Joint Chairmen of the committee.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a Joint Standing Committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the committee is empowered to inquire into.

That the committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Parliament.

10) That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That 7 members of the committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the committee and a majority of the members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That in matters of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman occupying the Chair have a casting vote.

That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote only.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the New and Permanent Parliament House appointed during previous Parliaments.

That the committee and sub-committees be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.

16) That the committee or a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it.

That the committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new and permanent Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the National Capital Development Commission as the Authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I wish to speak briefly to this motion. No sensible member of the House would oppose the appointment of this Committee. However, I am disappointed that, with the Committee being set in operation again, there has been absolutely no indication given by the Government or the Prime Minister of a proposed date for the commencement of this New and Permanent Parliament House. This Committee is examining a report published by the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House in March 1970. It is examining something that is eight years old. We have proceeded only a little further towards having a proper program developed. Some of my colleagues in the House, such as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), who were members of the Select Committee suffered great discomfort and disadvantage to themselves by travelling widely to look at parliament houses throughout the world to see the conditions that applied to them. But unless a date of commencement is given the situation will become worse.

I was elected to this House in 1969. The conditions under which I work in 1 978 are far worse than those that applied in 1 969. 1 am not suggesting that that is an individual experience; it applies to practically every member of the House and to every person employed in this building. The working conditions of most people here are intolerable. Some obvious factors contribute to it. Members of Parliament now are allowed to have one member of staff working here with them, but no sensible accommodation has been provided. The number of Ministers and their staffs housed here has increased, but no provision of accommodation has been made for them. This is an old building with a number of extensions being made. I think an effort was made to improve my accommodation recently when some work involving water pipes was done. But the plumbers forgot to connect one of the pipes and when I arrived on Monday the room was flooded. Unfortunately the application of water, rather than making the room grow appeared to make it shrink.

I address myself to the Committee. I know that its members have applied themselves seriously to their task. I know that there is an appreciation that the efficiency of operation of members and staff in this building is affected by the conditions under which they work. But it is quite useless to look at plans until we have a firm commitment to a date for the commencement of the project. I hope that the Committee will take firm action on that to see that the Prime Minister gives it an early reply.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-This will be the third Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House that has been set up by consecutive Parliaments to look at the whole question of the New and Permanent Parliament House. I have served on the last two committees. Having been responsible for steering through this House the Bill that established the location of the New and Permanent Parliament House, I can say to my colleague the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) that progress is being made. It is not always possible to see physical results and achievements from the enormous amount of planning that must go into a New and Permanent Parliament House. In the planning the Committee is being assisted to a very high degree by the National Capital Development Commission. I agree with the honourable member on one point. The Committee has set as its target for occupation the year 1988- the bicentenary of the invasion of this country by Europeans. That is now just 10 years away. The construction of the building will take a considerable time and the planning is not yet complete. It would assist the Committee if the Parliamentperhaps I should say the Executive, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet- were to give some encouragement in this matter. It is known by all that the people who decry most the need for a new Parliament House are those who are working under the worst conditions that could exist in the whole of Australia, that is, the parliamentarians themselves. It is very difficult to get them to have the courage to stand up and say to the community: ‘Yes, this building possibly will cost us $100m when it is built -

Mr Baillieu:

– What? You must be joking.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is the sort of backward attitude that comes from many members on both sides of this Parliament. Unless the parliamentarians themselves stand up and are counted on this issue and go to the electorate with some degree of courage, any descendants with desires to sit in this chamber will find themselves very very cramped indeed. They may not be cramped in the chamber but it is the accommodation in the rest of the building that matters. My colleague has already pointed out, and statistics show, that the population of Australia is increasing. That leaves us with one of two alternatives. Either the existing number of parliamentarians will be representing larger numbers of people or else there will be an increase in the representation in this House so that the number of people represented will remain unaltered. If in fact the number of parliamentarians increases they will have to be accommodated not only in this chamber but also in the offices, the places where they do most of their work. If an increase does not occur in the number of members of Parliament and those members in fact represent more electors, obviously some form of assistance will be needed for them to perform their tasks. Whichever happens, more accommodation will be needed in this building, a building that is overcrowded now.

It astounds me that the industrial unions of this country allow the clerks, the typists and the multitude of other people- I understand almost 1,000 people are employed here apart from parliamentarians- to work in the conditions under which they do work. There is a need for a new and permanent parliament house. I have said it before and I repeat- I am not afraid to say it here or publicly- that I trust those who sit in this chamber and in the other chamber will recognise the same need and display the same degree of courage.

What is needed more than anything else, as my colleague the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) pointed out, is for the Government to express its attitude on this matter. The Government never has done so. The Committee to my knowledge has submitted two reports to date. Those reports have been politely presented in the House. They have been laid on the table and have then gone into the archives or have been subjected to whatever happens to reports that are laid on the table. Copies of the reports are available from the Bills and Papers Office, I suppose. At no time has the Government given a clear indication as to where it stands on this issue. I sometimes wonder whether it is playing some sort of cat and mouse game. It is the old caper. If you want something to be buried forever give it to a committee to have a look at. The job involved can be done only by a committee of parliamentarians in conjunction with the consultants from NCDC. Once a practical way of solving the many problems is found architects will be appointed and construction commenced. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) who is at the table, has moved for the setting up of the Committee. The Committee has long terms of reference. I hope that the Minister on behalf of the Government of which he is a part will give a clear and unequivocal indication to the House that the Government is firmly committed not only to design the new parliament house but also to build it.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

-I am afraid that I must rise on this occasion to speak on the matter of the new and permanent parliament house. The whole economy of Canberra is on its knees at the moment because the construction industry, the only real industry in Canberra outside the public sector, is being crushed by Government decisions. The whole morale of the people of Canberra at present is at the lowest it has been for many years. This is typified by the decision of the Government yesterday to screw down the amount of money that will be available for homes in Canberra.

One way the Government could indicate to the people of Canberra that it feels that the city has a long term future, will continue to grow and will be a good place for those people who have chosen to live here and to bring up their children and to give them employment opportunities, would be for it to make a quick decision on the new and permanent parliament house. All of the things that the honourable members opposite have said on working conditions in the House are true. Only a hypocrite in this place would disagree with them. I rose briefly to say that Canberra would appreciate enormously a commitment to this major national project, a project which will take 10 years and which would indicate to the whole country that the future of Canberra is assured.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I want to add a few words to those of my colleagues the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) and the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) about working conditions in Parliament House. As one of the newest members here but having experienced working in another place, I confirm that working conditions here are really poor. In some respects I understand that working conditions are at least a little better than they have been because offices are not now shared. I do not think any honourable members now have to share an office with another member, but I know that this was the case in the last Parliament. Nevertheless, as my friend the honourable member for Scullin points out, we have to share our offices with staff members if we use them; and we surely need to use staff in Canberra.

My office accommodation is on the other side of the building, the Senate side. It makes me think of the small train under the Congress building in Washington which takes people from the House of Representatives side of the building to the Senate side. In the short time I have been here there have been odd occasions when I think we could have made use of that train.

Mr Baillieu:

– There are some very distinguished people there on the other side of the building.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, there are some distinguished members over there, and also some Liberal members. I was disconcerted this morning when the charming lady who does research in room L52 next door to my office came in and said that she thought it only fair to warn me that she could hear every word that I said on the telephone.

Mr Carlton:

– It is not surprising.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is an uncharitable comment. It seems to me that members face enough hazards as it is. We face the hazard of potential electronic bugging of the telephone by courtesy of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It seems a bit hard that at the same time there should be direct aural interception as well of what we say. There is no doubt that this will have an inhibiting effect about what one actually says on the telephone.

I think it is important that, if we are to have physical security in the building, there ought also to be reasonable security about what we say and do within the building. I am very concerned because rooms have been made available for office accommodation which were not intended for that purpose and which were perhaps originally parts of suites with adjoining doors and so on. Something ought to be done to ensure reasonable security for members. I hope that the day will hurry on when we do have a new and permanent parliament house in Canberra, one that is properly designed. This building, with respect, has been most improperly designed. It is very badly ventilated. It is a difficult building in which to find one’s way around. I hope a decision on the new and permanent parliament house will be taken soon. I hope that the parliamentary institution itself, as the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) says, survives long enough to make it worthwhile to have a new building.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I feel that I am probably the scratch man in this event when it comes to talking about office accommodation. I strongly support the establishment of this Committee. I hope that it will get ahead with the planning of a new and permanent parliament house. I heard the commencement of this debate and thought that the Committee would be established without the benefit of my comments. However I heard the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) say that he has been in this and another place a considerable number of years and that the accommodation in this place had got steadily worse since he has been here. I thought I would support him and his colleague, the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson). I hope that they will support me and visit my present accommodation which is getting not steadily worse but alarmingly worse. I felt that I should register support for my colleagues on both sides of the House about the accommodation for members and staff.

Very often the alterations which take place in this building are carried out without consultation with the people concerned. I arrived back here after the election to find that I was allotted a place- that is all I can call it. The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) mentioned that the lady in the room next door to his office could hear what he was saying. He should come into my office. If I do not have the windows open I suffocate. If the fan is running it blows all the papers off the table anyway. Members of the staff- I do not blame them for this- drag things up and down the hallway outside my office. There is no chance of carrying on any conversation whatsoever without it being possible for someone to hear it.

I speak very strongly about the deterioration in the accommodation of members and staff in this place. I urge that this Committee commence operating so that a new and permanent Parliament House is constructed as soon as possible. I am sure that it will not happen in my time. Even if I had not been in favour of this proposal before, and I was, I certainly would be in favour of it now because I do not think that anyone- staff or member- should have to be accommodated in what was the old barber’s shop. Honourable members may remember that.

Mr Scholes:

– Half of it; you have not got the lot.

Mr CALDER:

-No, that was the old shower room. That was converted into the barber’s shop which was then made into the office which accommodates the honourable member and myself. The barber came to Parliament House for only half a day each day of the week. Apparently, he could stand his accommodation for only half a day. I have put up with this accommodation every day. I spend a great deal of time here in Canberra, coming from afar as I do. The standard of accommodation provided in Parliament House is an utter disgrace. The standard of accommodation provided to certain members and to staff in this building really has been very poor. I hope that not only will I be removed from the old barber’s shop but also that my colleagues receive better attention in regard to the places in which they work. As the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) said, that is where we spend a lot of the time. In some of the cases, especially in my case, the accommodation is almost unbearable.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I can sympathise with those honourable members who have raised the question of the conditions under which they work in Parliament House. I can sympathise with the views expressed by honourable members who represent the areas around Canberra, particularly the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem), in wanting the building industry in the Australian Capital Territory to be given some sort of boost. I rise in this debate because it is the only opportunity I think I will have to express a view, on behalf of the Opposition, on how disappointed we are that in the list of committees which has been submitted by the Government to be established in this Parliament there is no mention of manpower planning. I would have thought that the Parliament would have been entitled to expect the Government to have given this matter consideration. In spite of the conditions under which we work in Parliament House, I am sure that those of us who are interested in these problems and those of us who are concerned about the way in which unemployment is growing day by day and week by week would have appreciated and welcomed an opportunity to work on a committee that was looking at manpower planning throughout Australia. I believe it is an indictment on this Government that again it has ignored this very urgent problem.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 372

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Motion (by Mr Groom) proposed:

That a Standing Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on:

environmental aspects of legislative and administrative measures which ought to be taken in order to ensure the wise and effective management of the Australian environment and of Australia’s natural resources, and

such other matters relating to the environment and conservation and the management of Australia’s natural resources as are referred to it by-

the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, or

resolution of the House.

That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.

That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 to be nominated by the Prime Minister and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.

That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any members of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Environment and Conservation appointed during the 28th, 29th and 30th Parliaments.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I again speak briefly, this time in respect to the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. I will offer a few words of praise and a few words of criticism. I happen to have some sort of proprietorial interest in this Committee, having been the Chairman of it at its inception and having been a member of it for virtually the whole of its existence. In this area, which generally is considered to be a trendy area in the community, Ministers, over the years of the Committee’s existence, whether they were Ministers in a Labor government or a Liberal government, have always been most cooperative with the Committee. I trust that the new Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom)- I will have grace enough to congratulate him on his appointment- will find some pleasure in his association with the Committee.

I believe that such committees, after they have been operating for a time, should be required to review the results of the reports they have made on past references. There was one example of this in the last Parliament with regard to Ayers Rock. This kind of committee should be required to review regularly what has arisen out of the reports.

I want to make one or two points of criticism: The motion presently before the House states, amongst the things that the Committee can do, that it can deal with such other matters, et cetera, as are referred to it by resolution of the House. I think it is regrettable that there is so little input from this House in respect to the subject matter before that Committee. The matters that the Committee deals with are raised by the members of the Committee itself or the Minister. I think that in a parliamentary committee system, Parliament ought to be responsible for some of the input to the committees.

I make another criticism: This is one of many subject matter committees we are dealing with today. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure was supposed to have been seen as part of a new committee set up and the introduction of legislation committees has been predicted. If these committees come into being, we will not be able to rise at the start of a new parliamentary session and deal with subject matter committees such as the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, the Standing Committee on Road Safety, the Standing Committee on Tourism and the others without giving some consideration to the overall picture.

I am an enthusiast of the Environment and Conservation Committee. But if we take a proper look at the committee system it may well be that the Environment and Conservation Committee and some of the other subject matter committees may have to disappear as entities and that the subject matter they examine be covered by some other committees so that the most important matters in a wide variety of fields can be dealt with by members of this Parliament in the limited time they have available.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 373

BOUNTY (POLYESTER-COTTON YARN) BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill now before the House is to give effect to the Government’s decision to provide assistance to the manufacture in Australia of polyester-cotton yarn. Following advice from the Industries Assistance Commission in its report No. 138 of 19 July 1977 on certain spun yarns and wool textiles and other goods, it has been decided to accord assistance by way of a bounty scheme providing for payment to Australian manufacturers of a bounty of $1.15 per kilogram on yarn consisting of a mixture of polyester and cotton fibres, in which the polyester fibres are not less than 50 per cent by weight, being single-fold combed yarn not coarser than 20 tex with at least one ply of 10 tex or coarser.

The bounty, which is payable from 1 October 1977, is seen by the Government as according short-term assistance to local manufacturers to enable them to compete on reasonable terms with imports of combed fine count polyestercotton yarn. The question of long-term assistance is currently under review by the Industries Assistance Commission and it is anticipated that the Commission’s report in this regard will be received towards the end of this year. Because of the short-term nature of the proposal, provision has been made for the scheme to operate on an annual basis, ceasing on 30 September 1 980, and for the amount available for payment of bounty not to exceed $600,000 annually.

Clause 22 of the Bill continues the Government’s policy of expanding, wherever possible, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to administrative decisions which affect rights or entitlements of persons under Commonwealth legislation. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 374

CUSTOMS TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I move:

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 ( 1 978 )

The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alteration to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. Proposals No. 2 implements the Government’s decision on recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on Tyre Cord Fabrics. The effect of the decision is to maintain the current rates of duty applying to polyamide and polyester tyre cord fabrics until 30 June 1978, at which time the additional duty of $2 per kilogram for imports cleared for home consumption outside tariff quota entitlements will reduce to $1 per kilogram. A comprehensive summary of changes contained in the Proposals is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 374

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– by leave- I move:

That the Committee of Privileges, when considering the matter referred to it on 28 February have power to send for persons, papers and records.

The Committee when undertaking its present inquiry may wish to have the power granted by the motion and, in accordance with practice, the motion is proposed for the concurrence of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 374

CONTROL OF NAVAL WATERS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Mr McLeay:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-This Bill seeks to amend substantially the Control of Naval Waters Act 1918. It also seeks to change a number of definitions to take account of technological change and other forms of change which have occurred since 1918. The Act was amended in 1966 to write in some ‘mysterious’ sign language called decimal measurement. Apart from that, the Act has remained substantially unaltered since 1918.

The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. It acknowledges that control over naval facilities, as with other defence facilities, is a proper function and something with which the Parliament should deal. There are, however, some matters relating to the Bill that should be drawn to the attention of the House. Technological change has made it necessary for the legislation to be updated, to cover for instance, skin divers who may operate in naval waters. There is some doubt whether such persons are covered under the terms of the Act. The Bill also seeks to cover aircraft, which although they existed then apparently were not considered to be of significance when the original legislation was drafted.

The mobility of the general population over water and land has increased markedly, especially in recent years. I draw the attention of the Minister for Construction and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence (Mr McLeay) to the fact that the Bill does not appear to give protection to the public against obscure proclamations or regulations made with short lead times. As a result little opportunity could exist for those concerned to be aware of the existence of a proclaimed area. It would be difficult to draw lines or build fences around sections of open area which would be subject to proclamation under the proposed legislation. I think it is important that persons who utilise areas that may at any given time be proclaimed are given adequate warning and proper descriptions of those areas. This information should be given especially in cases where the proclamation is likely to be of a short term rather than of permanent duration. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that people would, after a reasonable period, become acquainted with what are regular naval facilities or areas proclaimed as naval areas.

The Bill provides for the making of temporary proclamations. These give cause of some concern unless there are means by which the public can be protected. For instance, a special issue of the Government Gazette printed at midnight to apply from 4 o’clock the following morning, could meet the requirements of the Act as it now stands. However, such a provision would certainly not meet the requirements of common justice in the case of a person found to be in breach of the legislation who could be subject to six months imprisonment or an updated fine under this legislation of $ 1 ,000.

Another new provision in the Bill is that the Governor-General may proclaim or declare all vessels, or specified vessels, belonging to the naval forces of a specified country as being covered by this legislation. Most honourable members will remember the problems that arose recently in New Zealand as a consequence of a visit to that country by a United States of America nuclear vessel. The right to protect a vessel under those circumstances is not challenged. However, I make the point that the right of the Governor-General, and thus the government, to make such a proclamation which could affect persons who believe they are legitimately carrying out activities which they are entitled to perform in a democratic society should also be accompanied by very definite and clear guidelines or requirements as to when and how such a declaration may be made and how the areas may be defined.

As the legislation stands it will be possible to declare as naval waters the whole, or a section, of Sydney Harbour and as a result prevent any movement whatsoever on the harbour without any advance notice other than a published notice in the Commonwealth Gazette, which must be about the most obscure publication in the Commonwealth. That seems, under the Act, to be the only requirement. I think it is important that the Minister indicates the means by which proclamations will be made, the means by which the description of areas so proclaimed will be advised and the terminology which will be used. After all, one can put buoys but not markers on the open sea. Persons who regularly use an area which may be temporarily proclaimed are entitled to know that what they did yesterday may well be illegal today. They are entitled to know this information in terms which they will understand and from sources which they are entitled to be expected to see or hear.

As I said, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. However, it believes that the Bill should spell out what protection will be given to individuals who may be caught by a sudden proclamation. Whilst the Minister may say that that is not likely to happen, I think the experience in this Parliament in the last two years has been that where circumstances have arisen where the Government has taken action, subsequently to find that it was either improper or actually illegal, this Parliament and the community have been totally ignored and their rights ignored. In some cases where people have actually taken legal action successfully they have found themselves wasting their money because retrospective legislation has been pushed through the Parliament in order to deny them the rights to which the courts have said they were legally entitled under the law at the time.

The Opposition does not oppose the Bill, but I would hope that the Minister can clarify the points that I have raised, especially the ones in respect of the declaration of foreign vessels. It could be that this is an area where controversy will arise. I do not think that the Bill is intended for that purpose, although it could be used for a purpose for which I hope it is not designed.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-In speaking to the Control of Naval Waters Amendment Bill I should like to remind the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), who has just resumed his seat, that when legislation for the control of naval waters was first introduced into this place on 2 1 November 1918 by Mr Poynton, who apparently at one time was a member of the Australian Labor Party but who at that time was the Assistant Minister for the Navy and a National Party member, he pointed out that there were four provisions of the legislation, which I shall not read because I think the Minister for Construction and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence (Mr McLeay) has made them clear. I notice that in those days a similar argument to the argument which the honourable member for Corio put was put forward by the then Opposition. It queried the right of the senior Service to make provisions to safeguard its ships, personnel and installations. Nothing much appears to have changed. I know that the honourable member for Corio and his Party do not intend to vote against the Bill but they appear to have the same objection as the Opposition in this place 60 years ago.

The legislation presented in 1918 dealt with the safeguarding of ships and so on. As I have said, I will not deal with all the provisions of the present Act. Naturally times have changed. In the wars since that legislation was introduced various forms of aircraft, including sea planes and flying boats, have appeared on the defence scene. Certainly not the least of the menaces to ships at anchorage or stationed at roadsteads are the skindivers or frogmen-valiant men on both sides of any war. By the same token the Act has to be amended to take into account the sort of activities that these gallant gentlemen would attempt to undertake.

This legislation is designed to regulate the movement of vessels and other activities in the vicinity of naval establishments and moorings so that naval activities are not hindered. I ask the Minister: What would happen in the case of naval aircraft using certain establishments? I cite the case of Quail Island off Darwin. Aboriginal people objected to the Royal Australian Air Force using it as a bombing range. We could easily have naval aircraft doing the same operation as was being done in earlier days by RAAF aircraft. This is a real problem because the business of security and surveillance of the north, even going so far as the defence of the north, is a real problem. It is one that must come before this place and the general public for consideration. The necessity and urgency of it are very real.

Under the recent Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act hundreds of miles of our northern coastline are virtually to be put under the jurisdiction of the advisers- I say that reservedly- of the Aboriginal people. The situation which I mentioned at Quail Island was brought about by these advisers to the Aboriginal people, not necessarily the Aboriginal people themselves. I ask the Minister to look carefully into how this Bill can dovetail in to the Aboriginal land rights legislation. We have patrol boats standing in roadsteads off Groote Eylandt and using that area, although it is not a very safe place. I should not like to spend too many nights there. It is Aboriginal land. I see that there is no mention whatsoever of Aboriginal land in this amending Bill. The Europeans on Groote Eylandt are being denied- once again by the advisers of the Aboriginal people; I say that reservedly- the right to move off the mining leases. The same Aboriginal people could easily be stirred up to such an extent that they would deny the Navy or any other section of the armed Services use of the waters within two kilometres of this Aboriginal land. The mooring facilities would certainly be within that area.

Melville Bay, which is a secure harbour, is an Aboriginal area. Stores and provisions have to be conveyed to the armed Services operating in this area. The people who are that way inclined mentally may try to stir the Aborigines into taking action to prevent that. I do not think for a moment they would succeed because many of the

Aborigines in that area served during the Second World War. Some of them wear the ribbons from the Second World War to this day. They operated as coast watchers and so on. They would be a tremendous help in this respect today. I am advocating that we use them again. The way things are going with the advisers and urgers of Aboriginal people, one never knows what they will suggest to the Aboriginal people they should do. I urge the Minister to explain how that problem can be overcome and to set my mind at rest and also the mind of anyone else who is interested in the security of the north by assuring us that the operation of our armed Services in this area will not be impeded. If negotiations have to take place now to settle this matter, the quicker the better. The Aboriginal people are sincere, simple and straight-forward people. But as I have said, they can be advised to follow a very different course.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Construction and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I want to thank both honourable members who took part in this debate and I want to comment briefly on the matters that have been raised. First of all, in respect of the matter raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), I would like to have the opportunity to examine in detail what he said when I can read it in Hansard. My understanding of his comments is that he is really dealing with the mooring of ships off-shore. This Bill seeks to give the government of the day control over the waters of the seas adjacent to naval installations and, without reflecting on the honourable member, I do not think that there is really any link between what the Bill seeks to do and what the honourable member for the Northern Territory thought it might do. Perhaps we can discuss that a little later.

The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) raised some matters on which I want to comment briefly. It is true that this legislation was passed in 1918 and to that extent I suppose it could be just about due to be updated. I suspect that the legislation was born before most of us in this place were born. I have made some notes on the honourable member’s comments. First of all the honourable member- I think I quote him fairly accurately- referred to the need to protect in a democratic way the rights of people carrying out functions, presumably in these waters. I take it from that that he is referring to people demonstrating against warships and that type of activity.

Mr Scholes:

– What I was saying was that they are entitled to know where the prescribed waters are.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is quite right. In that context the honourable gentleman mentioned Sydney Harbour. I think he said that perhaps Sydney Harbour could be fully declared. The position is that Sydney Harbour is now fully declared. This legislation will exclude more waters in Sydney Harbour from the proclamation. The Bill gives the Royal Australian Navy power- I think rightly so- to protect itself against the sorts of antics that we saw a year or so ago just after the fire at the Nowra naval base. Honourable members may remember that a television crew seeking, I think we can say, to cause trouble and to obtain some sort of story for their news program donned underwater kit and attempted to place some rope around the propeller of a submarine in Sydney Harbour. They were detected before they were able to do that. In my view and in the view of the Government, we should legitimately seek to prevent that sort of activity. Not only did they endanger their own lives but also they put the lives of the crew of the submarine in possible danger. One of the purposes of the Bill is to prevent that sort of thing.

I am informed that there are approximately 23 areas currently proclaimed and many of them are unnecessary. That will be taken care of. The honourable member for Corio mentioned what he described as temporary proclamations. I cannot think of any circumstance, although some may exist, in which that is likely to be necessary. The mechanics would be that a proclamation would be made that would have to be revoked. Frankly, I cannot think of any circumstance in which that would apply. The honourable member mentioned the specification of foreign vessels. It is desirable and necessary that this be changed. As I think he probably realises, at the moment the Bill mentions only British vessels. This amendment will seek to include the naval vessels of all friendly nations. I do not think that there is very much else that requires comment. The honourable member for Corio mentioned the need to inform the public. Of course, the Government is very conscious of this.

Mr Scholes:

– That was the main thrust of my argument.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– As he says, that was the main thrust of his comments. The best example that I can give him occurred a year or two ago when we were preparing to open up Cockburn Sound- the new facility at Garden Island in Western Australia. On that occasion a series of Press releases was given to the local media and they co-operated very well. Maps were made available and they were published. On that occasion I think that everybody in Western Australia who was interested knew about it, and that would be the Government’s intention in these circumstances in the future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 377

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-In relation to the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1978, the first of the two Bills being debated in this cognate debate, on behalf of the Opposition, I move the following amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘Whilst not opposing the second reading of the Bill, the House deplores the actions of the Government:

in not having a medium or long term economic strategy, including a viable manufacturing policy, upon which to base general and consistent guidelines necessary for, among other things, the proper functioning of the Industries Assistance Commission, and

in threatening the basic independence of the Industries Assistance Commission, by its emphasis upon narrow and variable guidelines, and by its consistent failure to appreciate the advisory role intended for the Industries Assistance Commission.’

I hope that there will be some support for the sentiments of the amendment from the Government side of the House, from some honourable members who have been very energetic in ensuring the independence of the IAC.

Let me now put the institution of the IAC and these Bills into a proper perspective. We in the Australian Labor Party are determined to do our utmost to achieve full employment for this nation. Our interpretation of the phrase ‘full employment’ is a job for everyone who wants to be in the work force; at any one time the same number of job vacancies as there are people seeking jobs. All of this we want in the context of stable prices and an increased standard of living. That is our aim. We do not believe that this will come about by sitting back and letting the market achieve it. That may have worked in another day and age. Perhaps it worked in the 1950s and 1 960s. Structural changes have taken place since the 1950s and the 1960s in such a way as to prevent the old means from achieving full employment- the old macro-economic levers.

The only way in which our nation will return to full employment is by forging a partnership between business, or the private sector, and government, or the public sector, and planning for it. Ours is one of the last countries of its kind to adopt some sort of medium and long term planning, and we are all worse off because of that fact. I hasten to say that by planning we do not mean bureaucracy and directives and all those unpleasant features which a society of free people like ours will not tolerate. We mean sitting down and focussing on the medium and long-term economic and social perspectives for our country. We mean talented people in government, State as well as Federal, in the academic spheres, in business, and in the trade unions coming up with some objectives as to where we should be aiming. We mean the elected government having the final say as to what the targets should be, fully aware that unless there has been some consensus, say through an economic advisory council, in the advice given to the elected government, the Federal Government would have little likelihood of achieving those targets.

This is a cryptic background to the Labor Party decision to set up in government a department of economic development. When the Opposition is returned to government this department will have a major division drawing together this advice and ensuring that there is focus on a medium and long-term strategy. One of its major tasks will be to force government to make the hard decisions relating to what industries we should concentrate on in order to achieve full employment and the higher standard of living that I mentioned earlier. It goes without saying that unless we restructure up into those things which we do best, we shall continue to suffer not only the present high rates of unemployment but also the present poor rates of growth which are responsible for our standard of living virtually standing still or, more recently, going downhill.

Until this basic hard work is done and these hard decisions are taken it is difficult for any of us to be dogmatic about the shape of our economy in the future. It is difficult for us to be dogmatic about which regions of our country should be saved or should grow. We must obtain the raw material, advice and information, to which I have referred already, on which to base these decisions. Because we have suffered conservative government for so much of our recent history, we have not attempted to set up the mechanisms to collect the necessary information. We have not grappled with the fundamental, difficult decisions to which I have just alluded. The Vernon Committee report in the 1960s suggested that there should be a focussing on a medium or longterm economic strategy. The Menzies Liberal and Country Party Government of the day scuttled the idea and pigeon-holed the report. This was but one example of a missed opportunity to have that focus on a medium or longterm economic strategy. The opportunity went down the drain.

Subsequently we have all suffered. The market place has been the idol at the feet of which we have all been forced to worship. It has not provided us with all the correct answers. That is one of the reasons why we have had a poor rate of growth in this country. It has been in this context that the Industries Assistance Commission and its predecessor the Tariff Board have been forced to work. Insufficient guidelines have been set down by the elected government for that institution. It is no wonder that so much of what has resulted has given the appearance of restructuring down rather than restructuring up. We have learnt about where our resources should not be applied but we have not learnt where those resources should be substituted. We have learnt about where we are not efficient or competitive but we have not learnt about where we are efficient and competitive. This has not been the fault of the IAC or the old Tariff Board; it has been the fault of elected governments not grasping nettles such as the one I indicated earlier and not indicating the answers to the hard questions. The LAC has been used merely as a fireman charged with the task of putting out grass fires around the place as they were lit.

We all have hunches as to what some of the answers to this medium and long-term focus will be. Surely we should be upgrading our minerals to a much greater extent and not being the quarry for the rest of the world to such an extent. Surely we could be the Switzerland of this part of the world and use our higher standard of education to build up high technology industries. Surely we are going to need a thriving manufacturing industry to employ gainfully and rewardingly all those whom we want to see employed. I defined earlier what I meant by full employment. Although we may pay our way in a national sense by exporting primary products, the products of mining as well as farming, there would not be sufficient rewarding jobs if we concentrate merely on tertiary industries or, as the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) might say, not only the tertiary but also the quaternary and quinary industries as well. These are just some of the hunches but they must be more than hunches; they must be hard decisions. It has been and will be unfair on the IAC to work without those decisions or guidelines. In the meantime this has been its history. It works in a vacuum. It needs a medium or long-term economic strategy decided by government if it is to function properly.

We in the Labor Opposition have no hang-ups about a direction being given to the IAC but we do have some concern, some suspicion, about the form of the guidelines or the directives, as we might almost call them, which are possible under the alterations to the Industries Assistance Commission charter in the legislation now being debated. Let me now be more specific. The Opposition does not oppose the second reading of this Bill. As I have indicated, the Opposition is moving an amendment to it. But we are in genera! agreement with any attempt to ensure that the advice of the IAC takes due regard of the emphasis of overall government policy. As I said earlier, we recognise the need for the Government to provide the IAC with greater guidelines regarding general objectives. We are concerned, however, about the spirit of the legislation, especially the true motives behind the amendment to the Industries Assistance Commission Act outlined in the Bill. We are concerned about the possible misuse which might arise in the future. Our concern is more about what the current Government will do with the powers provided, not with the powers themselves. Our fear is that the amendments, particularly those outlined in clause 8 of the Bill, fail to go far enough and, in another sense, go too far in the pursuit of the principle of clarifying the general guidelines to be taken into account by the IAC.

Let me explain this concern a little further. The Opposition fears that the amendments to section 22 of the Act, as outlined in clause 8 of the Bill, are in danger of being the basis for incomplete and inconsistent guidelines. This, in turn, will not improve the chances of the IAC doing a better, more complete job of advising the Government and that is its role. These fears are best highlighted by reminding ourselves of the original intentions for the establishment of the IAC, set out by Sir John Crawford in the report which was adopted by the Whitlam Labor Government. Sir John Crawford, in advising the Whitlam Government, recognised that ‘broad policy guidelines ‘ were necessary for the satisfactory functioning of the IAC. He reached the following conclusion in his report:

There will always be argument about the criteria which the Commission should use for deciding how much assistance to recommend for different industries. But this argument is likely to be more wide-ranging, and perhaps also more distracting and confusing to the Commission, if it is concerned not only with how the Commission derives its criteria from certain broad policy objectives, but also with what those objectives should be.

Sir John’s recommendations regarding those broad guidelines were incorporated in section 22 of the 1973 Act which the legislation we are now debating seeks to alter. Subsequent experience, however, has revealed the need for perhaps a more explicit restatement of these guidelines. In particular, the IAC needs to be seen to be operating within the context of objectives which take into account both current circumstances and the hindsight provided by experience. The economic downturn has emphasised the point that decisions to adjust assistance levels to industry, whilst not being appropriate instruments for the pursuit of short term macro-economic objectives of economic policy, may have an important bearing on current economic conditions* It is not appropriate therefore for the IAC to appear to ignore the interaction between stabilisation policies on the one hand and industry policies on the other.

In addition, the Industries Assistance Commission’s interpretation of old section 22 of the Act makes it essential that the guidelines should be dealt with in more detail so that the Commission is required to give more explicit consideration to the interaction between the ‘efficiency’ objective and the other objectives set down. It should also be required to give attention to the reasons for its de-emphasis upon the Government’s desire, as expressed in the Act to ‘facilitate adjustment to changes in the economic environment, by the industries and people affected by such changes’ and to give attention to the wisdom of its apparent rejection of any government intervention in the economy which is not general and not market-orientated.

These sorts of considerations could be achieved by the amendments as set out in clause 8 of this Bill. However, we on this side of the House suspect that the present Government will be incapable of providing the necessary guidelines for the new paragraphs (a) (aa) of section 22 as they are written in this Bill. These new paragraphs require a considerable degree of interpretation by the IAC and by the Government itself. However, this interpretation will be plagued by the inconsistencies and incapabilities apparent in the policy pronouncements of the Government. The Fraser Government has no medium or long term strategy. That is why it is so difficult for the IAC to be able to interpret how to restructure up. It is left with the task of restructuring down.

The meaning to be attached to the phrases in this Bill, such as ‘sustained growth through balanced development of Australian industries’this is one of the objectives given the IAC, and all of us who study this Bill need to be cynical of how that can be achieved- and ‘improve efficiency while ensuring that any measures are taken only after having due regard of the capacity of the economy to sustain those changes . . .’, will be obscured by the Government’s confusion about the priorities before it.

There are many examples of this. Let me cite some of them. First, the amendments, when read in conjunction with those in clause 8 and clause 10, appear to indicate the Government’s concern over preventing any further deterioration in the unemployment situation. We could all, of course, support that sentiment. However, this apparent concern for employees in the manufacturing sector is called into doubt when we consider the Government’s last Budget containing neither substantial unemployment relief measures nor provisions for structural adjustment assistance. Indeed, last May Cabinet rejected a proposal to conduct a major inquiry into the nature of the present unemployment situation. Secondly, the Government’s apparent concern over protecting jobs is put into doubt by its failure to refute arguments that increased protection cannot, in all cases, protect jobs in the short run. It leads to lower, not higher, levels of employment in the long run. Thirdly, time and time again the Government has stated that its first priority is the reduction of inflation. Since the use of tariff protection measures to attempt to reduce unemployment is itself inflationary, the Government’s statements on the tariff front are inconsistent with its stated aim to reduce inflation before it attempts to reduce unemployment. These are examples of inconsistencies that are very apparent in the Government’s approach to these matters. I could go on and on with other examples.

The Government’s desire to protect industries by preventing losses and so maintaining employment, good in itself, is in contrast with the fact that in so many cases increased protection has only led to increased profits and not to increased employment. We have only to read the last annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission to see many examples of that being so. On the contrary, in many cases such protection has feather-bedded the profits of highly protected industries and has not led to increased employment at all.

Finally, the White Paper on Manufacturing Industry was characterised by a distinct contradiction between long and short term policies towards industry. The long term appeared to come down solidly on the side of the need to accept change and to encourage resources to move into areas where Australia has natural advantages. I have already explained the Opposition’s support of such an attitude. But the short term stand taken in that White Paper had a heavily protectionist bias, which in so many cases was inconsistent with the long term aim. No recognition was given, therefore, to the problems of striking a balance between allowing for change on the one hand and attempting to insulate industries from change on the other hand. I come back to the need to restructure up, not down, which is what has been going on so readily in recent years.

These are just some of the contradictions and inconsistencies apparent in the Government’s approach to industry policy which will no doubt confuse and hamper the functioning of the IAC. It is likely, therefore, that the ‘additional matters’ and the ‘directions as to priorities’, referred to in the new sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 22 of the Act will reflect those inconsistencies and contradictions, and may simply lead to a selection of piecemeal and ad hoc guidelines which will largely defeat the purpose of the amendments to section 22.

That the Minister is empowered under this legislation to give supplementary guidelines to the Commission is symptomatic that the Government is not clear in its thinking about what it wants the IAC to do. Surely it could write in a comprehensive set of guidelines now rather than do so at the last moment when pressed by some lobbyist group or other to do so. It means that governments in future will be subject to the most intense lobbying from both sides of industry as to what the guidelines should be for any particular inquiry. It means that the IAC, perhaps with each reference, could have a different set of guidelines and there will be no overall objective look at what should be happening in our industries.

Mr Hyde:

– Except in its annual reports.

Mr HURFORD:

– Yes, except in the annual reports. We must all commend the quality of IAC annual reports. They certainly do give an opportunity for the IAC to make comments and to inform those interested in these measures. But I still believe that it should be the government of the day which sets the overall guidelines; that it should be the elected Government establishing what is the medium and long term economic strategy within which the IAC should work.

These problems are the direct result of the bankruptcy of the Government’s ‘industry strategy’. What is clearly required, and what this Government is apparently incapable of producing, is, as I have said, that a framework which would be capable of producing a consistent and broad set of guidelines within which the IAC could work. The malaise the Government finds itself in could only be corrected if the Government accepts a leadership or planning role.

It is necessary for governments, in cooperation with business, academics, scientists, economists and others, as I indicated earlier, to try to identify those industries which might be developed in the future and which should be encouraged to develop. It is not at all clear, as I have o 1 n i*ndicated an.’.a. that - o .6-‘ forces will select the appropriate industries or will facilitate the necessary adjustments by workers and industries to this change. The recognition of these doubts should result in government decisions on policies towards industry acknowledging that a package of measures is required. By failing to adopt this approach, the Government has in many ways opted out of its real responsibilities to give us a co-ordinated approach to industry, to manpower problems, to job security, to location of industries, and to migration and education- all elements of policy that ought to be taken into account when one talks of the future of our industries and the future security and lives of our working people.

In the sense canvassed so far, therefore, the Government is not likely to go far enough in providing proper, wider guidelines which we want for the IAC. However, in many other ways, as I have indicated in the amendment, the Government will probably go too far and in doing so, threaten the very nature of the IAC. I refer again to Sir John Crawford’s recommendations regarding the establishment of the IAC. It was argued that the IAC’s independence served two vital purposes. First, the Commission, because of its independence, could- and I quote from Sir John Crawford ‘s report: . . . provide disinterested advice in an area of government activity which will always be subjected to conflicting pressures from special interest groups within the community.

Measures which assist particular industries are forms of economic discrimination. If a government is to have regard for the equity of its decisions on assistance to particular industries, it must have a source of advice that takes into account the fact that those likely to gain from a particular measure tend to be more organised and articulate than those likely to lose. Secondly, I note that Sir John recognised with regard to the important element of independence that the Commission could: . . . facilitate public scrutiny of an important area of government policy, by means of inquiry processes in which all interested or affected parties can participate, and reports to the Parliament which can be published.

Such public scrutiny is an essential pre-requisite for well informed and equitable decision making in this vital area of policy making. Therefore, weakening of the independence of the IAC within broad guidelines will cast doubts on the quality and purpose of government decision making. Hence independence, in the sense defined, is a precondition for the acceptable functioning of the IAC. Contrary to the assurance of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) when introducing this Bill, I fool that tl% a Irs *i depen r art re± rC t%* a T A (~** 11 *Va

L11UL 111 If independence of the 4 « 111 *VS w placed in jeopardy by the actions of the present Government. The use of narrow and variable guidelines, which appears to be the intention of the Government, is likely to realise a fear expressed by Sir John Crawford in the report to which I referred earlier. His argument was as follows: . . . the Government would normally ask the Commission to advise it on the nature and extent of assistance which, in the Commission ‘s view, should be given to particular industries, and that this question would not be limited in any way. I would regard a ‘restriction’ as some statement or wording in the reference to the Commission which limits the range of recommendations the Commission can make about the nature and extent of assistance which should be given to the industry covered by the reference.

Realisation of that fear has been made very much a possibility by this legislation. Sir John went on to say:

When references are restricted in the way I have described, and the investigation and argument associated with certain important questions is pursued privately elsewhere, the Government is obviously substantially preempting the formal advisory process the Commission has been established to pursue. It is depriving itself of certain widely accepted advantages of the process, and especially the opportunity it provides for public and disinterested examination of benefits, costs, and possible alternatives.

I repeat that under this legislation that independence is likely to be eroded. It will depend on how the Government acts. But the opportunity is now given to the Government to react unwisely to lobbying and therefore to erode the independence of the advice coming from the IAC. As I have said, its independence will be placed in jeopardy. On past performances, the Government will be trying to make the IAC a tool of misuse and inequitable policy making.

The second reason for our fear that the Government’s action will jeopardise the IAC’s independence is the Government’s persistent misunderstanding of the advisory role of the IAC. The attempts of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at ‘IAC-bashing’ over the last year or so, his attempts to blame the IAC for increased unemployment- he should have placed the blame where it belongs, namely, on his own shoulders and the shoulders of his Liberal-National Country Party Governmentand his use of the IAC as a scapegoat for government actions and inactions are both a reflection of the Prime Minister’s unique style of prime ministerial dominance which he is attempting to impose on Canberra and the nation and a reflection of his ignorance as to the real purpose of the IAC. We are deeply suspicious of a Prime Minister who deals with unpalatable advice not simply by rejecting it, which the Government has the right to do, but by trying to prevent the body concerned from giving that independent advice. We find it incredulous that a Prime Minister can make public statements based upon the belief that it is the IAC which makes decisions about the degree of protection when that is just not the case. There is absolutely no way in which the IAC’s advice can be imposed upon government; government has the right to choose. The resultant muddle and inconsistency in policy making is becoming more evident, as are the attempts by the Government to emasculate the Commission. The IAC’s independent advice, within the general constraints of acceptable and consistent guidelines, is as essential today as it was when the IAC was set up. The IAC must be allowed to continue to state the pros and cons of its recommendations and to state the nature of any conflicts it sees in the guidelines expressed to it by government.

Sir John Crawford saw the IAC as being an important means for achieving the co-ordination of longer term policies on assistance to Australian industry. The Government is attempting to defeat that purpose through its neglect of an industry strategy and through its attempts to muzzle the Commission.

Let me say in conclusion that I believe that the IAC will continue to find ways of getting its message across, if only in its annual report, as was indicated earlier, no matter how the legislation is interpreted. Short of abolishing the IAC or stacking it with stooges, it will be very difficult to eliminate the Commission’s integrity. With regard to that point, however, who knows what the Government will do when it discovers that it has failed to suppress the IAC from presenting the Government with unpleasant facts- facts which should be brought to our attention.

I have spoken almost exclusively about the effect of this first Bill on the IAC. Similar concerns arise over other amendments in this Bill to the charter of the Temporary Assistance Authority. I repeat that our concern is not with the IAC and the TAA being given guidelines but with the particular form the Government may give those guidelines which could put in jeopardy the valuable independent role of the IAC. That concern is expressed in our amendment. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Willis:

– I second the amendment.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-The Opposition affects to criticise this measure and has moved a lengthy amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, but it does not formally oppose its second reading. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) treated the House to a rambling discourse of high purpose but little practical effect. It is particularly disappointing that the Opposition, in its amendment, and sections of the Press have tried to represent the Bill as one which is designed to undermine, to hobble, the Industries Assistance Commission, and to threaten its independence. That is simply not the case. That is a total misrepresentation of the Bill, as I shall make clear.

The Bill is, I submit, a very important measure. It forms part of the Government’s program to improve that very process of industry policy which the Opposition affects to criticise the Government about in its amendment. We hear a good deal about the so-called four arms of economic policy- fiscal, monetary, incomes, or more narrowly wages, and external, policy. The Government fully recognises that a positive policy towards industry, and in particular manufacturing industry, is a fifth arm, so to speak, of policy of great importance. The current unhappy situation of too high a rate of unemployment is very much a matter of difficulties in the manufacturing sector. The Government then sees this Bill as being one measure- among a number of measures, I will come back to that- giving effect to its firm commitment to a diversified but strong and efficient manufacturing sector in Australia, complementary to our great rural and mining industries.

Of course, the rural, mining and indeed tertiary industries all come within the purview of the Commission. But manufacturing in Australia- this ‘small, rich, remote industrial country’, as Professor Arndt once put it- is peculiarly vulnerable to competition from imports. That vulnerability was greatly increased by the Whitlam wage explosion of 1 974.

It is a central task of the Government, therefore, to afford Australian industry appropriate protection if we are to maintain high and growing levels of employment in Australia. I use the word ‘appropriate’ advisedly. This is not the context in which to start an argument of the old ‘free trade versus protection’ issue. As I have said, the very nature of the Australian economy, will demand levels of protection for as long as one can see ahead, but the important point is that the protection should be provided sensibly, appropriately and judiciously. As we all know, the granting of protection, assistance, to industries has very important effects on different sectors of the community and it bears on the situation of Australia as a major trading nation. Because of the magnitude and importance of these effects, it has long been accepted that such protection should be afforded industry only after public inquiry, investigation and, in a sense, justification. The importance of having an expert independent advisory body, the IAC, formerly the Tariff Board, to undertake this public inquiry and report is not in dispute. Nothing in this Bill affects or changes that, the Opposition’s amendment notwithstanding.

But in the end, of course, only the Government makes tariffs or affords assistance to industry in other ways. What then is of key importance is, firstly, that the IAC, the Government’s advisory body, should provide the Government with the most comprehensive, pertinent and constructive advice possible to assist it in this extraordinarily complex task and, secondly, that the whole process should be carried out in a way that has a positive, not a deterring and adverse, impact on business confidence. The latter is assuredly, justifiably or otherwise, what has happened in recent years. This Bill then amends the Industries Assistance Commission Act with a view to ensuring, so far as it can be done by statute, that the advice given in this centrally important area is as relevant, comprehensive and, constructive as possible, to make the decision process as effective as possible.

The first part of the Bill to which I direct attention relates to the policy guidelines given to the Commission in section 22 of the present Act. In this context I think it is correct to say that the IAC has by and large pursued a very particular approach in its recommendations. Its critics describe it as ‘ narrow ‘, ‘ simplistic ‘, ‘ doctrinnaire ‘ and lacking in relevance to the real situation and aspirations of Australian industry. Its proponents see it as the course of economic rectitude. This IAC approach focuses on promoting an ‘optimum allocation of resources’. The criterion is socalled ‘economic efficiency’, which means in plain terms the capacity of an industry to operate profitably in competition with imports with only low tariffs- to put a figure on it, say in the order of 15 to 25 per cent. Industries requiring much more protection that that are apt to be said to be ‘inefficient’, with the possible implication that they ought to be scaled down if not phased out of the Australian scene. Against that approach, it can be contended that the single-minded- in recent years, some would say obsessive- pursuit of economic efficiency prejudices other objectives, in particular economic growth and employment opportunities, regional development, the nurture and development of key technologies and other matters.

This is a large subject and I will not go into it further here. But the issue is a real one, a major one, not to be simply resolved. Accordingly, to return to the Bill, a major provision, clause 8, referred to by the Opposition, amends that section of the present Act, section 22, which may be interpreted as it stands as giving statutory priority to ‘economic efficiency’ as against other objectives, in particular employment opportunities and growth. Thus section 22 of the present Act enjoins the IAC in the performance of its functions to have regard to the desire of the Government to ‘improve the efficiency with which the community’s productive resources are used’, and then it lists other matters to be taken into account. Clause 8 of this Bill amends this, requiring the Commission to have regard to the Government’s desire to ‘achieve sustained growth in the Australian economy- I note that economic growth is not mentioned in the policy guidelines as they stand in section 22- ‘through balanced development of Australian industries with a view to providing increased opportunities for employment and investment’. Then follows proposed new section 22 (aa): ‘improve the efficiency with which the community’s productive resources are used . . .

That provision is the same as the old clause, but then there is a rider about the capacity of the economy to sustain change is now added.

I submit that that is a very reasonable change to the law. It can be said- doubtless the Commission would so contend- that increased economic efficiency will itself ensure more rapid growth and expanded employment opportunities. But that is the very proposition which is arguable, especially so if the objective of economic efficiency is pursued too fiercely by way of reducing tariffs without adequate consultation and communication with industry- I mean both sides, unions as well as employers- and without appropriate adjustment and retaining facilities and programs and, very importantly, without appropriate incentives for expansion in other ways and in other areas, that is, without the ‘positives’ for encouraging expansion in other markets or in other lines of activity in order to take up resources, expecially labour, that may become surplus.

A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Mr John Uhrig, Managing Director of Simpson Pope Ltd, is of interest in this respect. Australian manufacturing has to get much more conscious of export possibilities, he argued. There can be no doubt about that and this Government recognises that and is about to introduce an expanded export incentives scheme. He goes on to argue that of course it is desirable to scale down high tariffs but things need to be done in due order. Mr Uhrig referred to change in industry. Of course, change is inevitable. We do not need to be lectured by the Opposition about it. It is necessary to be clear about it and not be afraid of it because it will go on and always has gone on, and to a much greater extent than is generally recognised. To return to Mr Uhrig, he states:

If we attempt to bring about this change simply by scaling down tariffs, the people who depend on industry will feel threatened. They will respond negatively. Unemployment will worsen … On the other hand it is desperately important that we get on with the job of bringing about change. The answer -

That is, according to Mr Uhrig. Let us say, one answer- lies in bringing about an increase in the emphasis on exporting before we reduce tariffs to any appreciable extent.

As I say, the order of doing things is important.

The next important matter in this Bill to which I refer is clause 10 which provides for a proposed new Section 23 (A) which lays down certain requirements as to the form of reports by the Commission. In effect it asks of the Commission that it should canvass the range of options open to the Government as to what form, and the extent, of assistance it should give, and the likely effects, in particular on employment, of the varying approaches. I stress particularly proposed new section 23a (c) on page 4 of the Bill. It requires the Commission to report whether the structure of the industry can be improved and, if so, in what ways and by what measures. Thus, far from suppressing attention to change, as has been charged of this measure, the Bill directs the Commission to look to change. This I stress has always been the Liberal Party’s approach. Thus this clause of the Bill embodies effectively a key section of the Party’s 1975 manufacturing and industrial development policy. I seek leave to incorporate the relevant section in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

INQUIRIES AND REPORTS BY THE INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION (IAC)

A Liberal and National Country Party government will require that the IAC shall include in its report on an industry all pertinent facts including: the method and level of tariff and other assistance necessary adequately to protect the industry against import competition; whether the industry could be more efficient, the basis for judging efficiency, the possible improvement in efficiency and the level of tariff or assistance then required; whether the industry desirably should be re-structure( and if so how this should be done and the consequences thereof; whether the industry is less efficient than it could be due to fragmentation, insufficient specialisation or some other restriction; the probable consequences, economic, social and otherwise of changing existing levels of tariffs or assistance; such other information as the Government may require in a general guide line statement or in a particular reference, and any information deemed relevant by the IAC: so that the Government will be able to assess and decide whether to adopt recommendation of the IAC or alternatively what level of tariff or other assistance should be provided to the industry.

Dr EDWARDS:

– I would like to touch at the point on the issue of the right way to proceed in circumstances of high unemployment, referred to by the Opposition. The Government’s White Paper on manufacturing industry makes it clear that it is the Government’s policy to aim at- I quote from page 4 of the White Paper: ensuring that in times of economic downturn manufacturing has adequate support so as to alleviate economic and social disruption, and minimise the erosion of employment opportunities.

I suspect that the present IAC view would not be entirely in accord with this, but this is not the time to debate the matter. What I want to stress is that the present condition of slack in the economy, as I said this morning in another context, has not been an ordinary cyclical downturn in economic activity but rather a situation of relatively high unemployment, and inflation- the two factors significantly associated with major elements of imbalance in the economy which were the legacies of the Whitlam Government. Chief among them is the too-high Australian cost structure which stems primarily from the wages explosion of 1974 in which year real wages rose by some 10 per cent. That would be four or five years’ normal growth rolled into one. Thus in 1978, only three plus years on, we are still operating within the impact of that distortion. As a holding operation while the Government works to restore a more normal situation, additional protection particularly in the form of quantitative restrictions has been afforded a number of Australian industries.

In its draft report on textiles the IAC notes the ‘high costs’ of protecting these industries but then states as ‘even more disturbing’ the ‘alarming rate at which these costs have escalated in recent years’. I stress that this is not to say that these industries over this period have just sat back on their bottoms and grown inefficient while inducing governments of either side to up tariffs and impose quotas to assist them, to the detriment of consumers and farmers. The Whitlam wage cost explosion was the crux of the problem; the higher protection has been, essentially, consequential- a matter of holding the line, so to speak, on activity and employment in industries threatened by imports while this Government gets the basic economic settings right and thus sets the stage for an orderly and sustainable adjustment of industries where necessary.

Now we are getting the settings right, but there is some way to go yet. If in the meanwhile we were not to have these protective holding operations I referred to, too little of Australian industry would be left when, again, we restore stability. I certainly hope that Australians generally, but particularly those in rural areas who feel themselves most disadvantaged by higher protection to manufacturing, appreciate this.

Yet significant change in the pattern and the structure of a variety of industries is part and parcel of this whole process of restoring a sound economy. That is what is so important about this Bill. As I suggested earlier, it is one part of a total industry policy the Government is hammering out. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Adelaide, had some hard words to say about the Government’s activities in this area, but ‘hammering out’ is the operative phrase. Believe me, Australia is not the only country with a problem. Major manufacturing industries are in trouble all over the world. The world’s steel industry, electronics industry, ship building industry, and of course the textiles and clothing industry and even the car industry are all in trouble, with the great and continuing growth of capacity in Third World countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Mexico, a major cause of the difficulty. There are problems, as the author of a recent major article in the Economist on the subject put it, ‘for which no one today has an answer’. We are all working towards an appropriate overall industry policy- and I am saying that the importance of this Bill is precisely that it is part of that process.

There are other components. One is the new export incentive proposals as referred to by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) the other day which I mentioned earlier. This Government wants to see Australian manufacturers back into the export business from which they were effectively squeezed out by the actions of the previous Government. Another component is that there is to be an upgrading of the existing incentives and a new look at industrial research and development. Third, as also referred to by the Minister, is that there is to be a new program of in-depth studies of minerals and other resource processing prospects. These are the positives- policies to foster new activities and new industry developments geared to world market opportunities which can impart new momentum to the growth of Australian manufacturing and take up slack as some existing activities are reduced. There is further the Crawford study group on long term policies to assist with adjustment problems particularly in highly protected industries.

It needs to be appreciated that clear and operable policies in this context are a necessary complement to a program of reducing high levels of protection. It has to be recognised that when you advocate a big tariff cut you do so because you believe that the whole economy- the Australian community as a whole and other countries, our trading partners- will gain. It is a reasonable proposition that if the whole economy is to gain significantly in this way those most affected should be compensated out of those gains. That is what adjustment assistance is all about. It is not to be thought of as a handout or unwarranted government interference. Rather it is a necessary part of significant tariff change. I put it again: If there is a really powerful case for change and an unconscionable protection cost to stall change, orderly assisted adjustment is the sensible and logical course.

I revert to the measure before the House. Its primary thrust, so far as can be done by statute, is to adjure the IAC to provide comprehensive advice- and to provide, as Sir John Crawford put it in a recent address, constructive advice to government. It is of interest to note that at the point where Sir John Crawford made that statement in his recent Stan Kelly Memorial Lecture, he went on:

The position in sensitive industries should not be drastically changed for say a two-year period while inflation is reduced further, some economic recovery is achieved and, most important, while the measures for adjustment assistance to the affected industries are devised, or if existing now, overhauled and made more satisfactory than they are now. Policies for adjustment of industries have to be clear on the treatment of capital … on manpower adjustment and on the period to be provided for phasing down overcostly protection. On all these matters the IAC should be the adviser in respect of particular industries -

That is the constructive role- in the light of its assessment of the magnitude and severity as well as the geographical incidence of the problem. This assessment should be made in the light of the adjustment assistance programs known to be available. A restructuring program has, therefore, several components and the administration of the program which requires effective coordination of the parts might well call for a Structural Adjustment Board.

As to that last remark I say maybe, maybe not. It is a moot point how far the Government should get into the overall act either via such a formal body or in other ways. We await the Study Groups report with interest.

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

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

Listening to the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) I am encouraged, if not a little surprised, by the reasonableness of his approach to this question. It is certainly not in the interests of the Opposition to promote this argument as a highly polarised one. However, I am bound to say that the attitude of the honourable member for Berowra is in sharp contrast to that of his Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who has set about in the last two years or so demonising the Industries Assistance Commission and blaming it for the substantial ills which confront this country. I suppose this piece of legislation more than anything else we have had to deal with in this Parliament illustrates clearly important aspects of the Prime Minister’s character. For instance, it is another example of the Prime Minister’s determination to blame others for problems which really are of his own making and the solutions for which are within his own hands.

We have had for the last two years a constant assault on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It has been blamed for the problems of the economy. It has been blamed for unemployment. Every time the Arbitration Commission gives a new decision on wages the Government says that this will set back the recovery which we have all been awaiting for so long. As well, the Prime Minister has been demonising the trade union movement for the last two years and blaming it for the problems, particularly unemployment and inflation, which beset this economy. The Prime Minister has demonised the Opposnon for discouraging confidence and encouraging speculation on the currency. We see this legislation as a formalisation of his admonition of the IAC which has been unrelenting, at least in the last year. The important thing to note, however, is that when the Opposition was in government we had to deal with these exact problems. We had the problems of the Arbitration Commission. We had the problems of an Oppostion determined to destabilise the economy and determined to destabilise the political complexion of this country. The Labor Government also had the problem of the Industries Assistance Commission. Yet, under this Government, which has exactly the same problems, we have seen the unemployment problem escalate to almost unprecedented levels. However, the Government sees fit to allow the blame for its problems to rest upon those institutions with which the previous Labor Government dealt much more successfully.

I suppose that we can be encouraged by one aspect of this legislation. At least with its passage perhaps one of the subjects of the admonition of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will be removed. He will no longer be able to hold the IAC as being culpable for all of our economic ills. A second illustration of the Prime Minister’s character which is contained in this legislation is his penchant for creating and encouraging a myth and then using that myth to substantiate legislative or other action. We saw a classic case of this late last year when the Prime Minister encouraged speculation about an early election. In fact, he initiated that speculation. He encouraged it for months and months. Then, when it suited him, he moved in and said that because of this speculation, because of the need to end that speculation, he would have to call an early election. Now we have seen the same move in respect to the Industries Assistance Commission.

We have seen the creation by the Prime Minister of an argument or an attack against the IAC. He has been developing it over the last two years, almost solely amongst the Ministers of this Government. He has ignored the support for the IAC which has come from various sources, particularly the rural community, the retail community and consumers and has led an assault on it. Now he is using the attack, which he initiated and encouraged, to justify the introduction of this legislation. Thirdly, this legislation represents a further confirmation of the Prime Minister’s determination to inflict compulsorily on the community the madness of his individual economic policy. His economic policy has absolutely nothing to do with reality. It has very little support amongst respectable economists of this country. Yet, with his obsessive attitude, he will inflict that policy on the IAC. He hopes, if he can force the IAC to embrace his particular economic madness, that that will make his economic policy that much more respectable.

One of the aspects of his curious approach to economics which is exemplified by this legislation, is his view that so long as expenditure does not show up in the Government accounts it does not exist. That is to say, so long as assistance for industry does not show up in Government accounts and so long as it is disguised in other ways, but nevertheless borne by the community, it may be ignored by Government. He will resist any attempt to transfer that necessary assistance from the general community, including consumers and export industries, on to the Government as a whole and to provide that assistance via budgetary measures. I suppose that the most dangerous aspect of this legislation is that it reveals the Prime Minister’s intention to force the IAC to come forward with recommendations which the Government will find palatable. That is, it will avoid the Government having to make difficult political decisions as a result of recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission. In that proposal lies the charge which the Opposition makes of the attack on the independence of the IAC- that is, its independence to make a rational and intelligent assessment of the problems which confront an industry which is under its notice.

Before dealing with the particular changes which are included in this Bill, I want to examine very briefly the role of the IAC as it has operated since its creation in 1973. The procedures are that the Government sends to the IAC a reference to examine the question of further assistance, continued assistance or reduced assistance for a particular industry. The IAC then inquires into that reference and, importantly, does so in public. It then in many cases produces a draft report which contains draft recommendations. That is circulated to all interested parties. As a result of further submissions on the basis of the draft report, a final report containing final recommendations is prepared, sent to the Government and is made public by the Government. It is important to emphasise, as the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) did, that the IAC has absolutely no executive power to enforce its decisions or recommendations upon the Government. The Government has the power to reject, accept or amend the recommendations which the IAC has made and it is perfectly proper that the Government should have that power. What is important is that the recommendations which the IAC does make are based on the best possible public information, are subjected to public scrutiny and are eventually made public when the recommendations are given to the Government.

Having said that, I turn quickly to three of the matters included in this Bill and to discuss what the implications of these changes appear to be for the IAC. The first of these matters is the intention to narrow the quidelines and to allow the Minister to add specific priority directives to any reference which goes to the IAC. The point of these changes, we are told in the second reading speech and in various Press comments from the Prime Minister and other Ministers, is to ensure that the IAC takes greater account of the economic policies of this Government. This is an intriguing proposition in itself. It will be fascinating to see, once this legislation becomes law, the way in which the Government is able to put into simple words as a directive to the IAC exactly what its economic policy is.

For instance, we are told by the Government in the Governor-General ‘s Speech that the major priority of this Government is its so-called counter-inflationary policy. We are told that that is its top priority, that it has no intention of deviating from it and that it has no intention of giving any attention to the problem of unemployment until such time as the problem of inflation in its own terms has been overcome. Are we perhaps to see lower and lower protection being recommended by the IAC as a result of this priority and this directive? If we look at the effects of protection on the consumer price index in recent times, we find, at least in the clothing and footwear industries, that since the imposition of the higher levels of protection for those industries the direct effect on the CPI has been in the order of 2 per cent. If we compound this by taking into account the wage indexation implications of that increase, we find that the addition to the CPI as a result of that protection alone has been in the order of 3Vi per cent. Therefore, are we to see, in the interests of achieving the Government’s top priority- a reduction in inflationa reduction in the level of protection which is given to those two industries? That is a clear implication from the changes which are before us today.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– No, it is to require greater knowledge so that you can make decisions about it. You are misreading the directions completely.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The only conclusion one can come to on this question is that the IAC must take into account the Government’s attitudes to these matters in order that it might prejudge the issue. I contend that that will influence greatly the independence of that body.

The second proposition I want to refer to is the proposal that the IAC should advise the Government on that level of assistance which would be necessary to maintain existing activity and employment in an industry. I suggest that this is a nonsense proposition and that it will be impossible for the IAC to respond to that sort of directive. The IAC itself has pointed to the impossibility of this task. We have only to look at what has happened in recent years to see the nonsensical nature of this directive. Looking at some of the industries which have received the highest protection in recent times- that protection being based on the desire to maintain employmentwhat have we in fact seen? We have seen the profitability in those industries increase. In fact, the most highly protected industries are some of the most profitable. Yet we have seen the decline in employment in those industries occur more rapidly than in manufacturing industry as a whole. Not only that, we have seen the level of wages in those industries lower than for manufacturing industry as a whole. Therefore, the consequences of higher protection which is ostensibly to maintain employment have in fact led to lower wages, higher profits and less employment.

Let me give the example of the footwear industry. Do not think for a moment that I am attacking this industry or suggesting a reduction in protection for it. The point I am trying to make is that the Government is adopting a quite unrealistic approach to this question. Clearly it does not understand the implications of the legislation which is before us. The footwear industry currently enjoys an effective rate of assistance of 45 per cent. It is the fourth most highly profitable manufacturing industry. Yet, the level of wages in the industry is about only 80 per cent of the wages paid by manufacturing industry as a whole. At the same time as this has been happening there has been a reduction in employment in the footwear industry of over 10 per cent compared with a reduction of 5 per cent in manufacturing industry as a whole. The point is that one cannot have clear objectives in respect of protection. One cannot simply say to the Industries Assistance Commission: ‘We want you to maintain employment, we want you to tell us what level of protection is necessary to maintain employment’, if in fact by increasing protection we will reduce employment as has happened in the footwear industry.

The third aspect of this legislation with which I want to deal is the proposition that will allow the Minister to withdraw a reference from the IAC. At the moment, once a reference has been given to the IAC, that body deals with that reference until the time it delivers to the Government a first or final report with its recommendations. The proposition now is that at any time during the IAC’s consideration of that reference the Minister can write to the Commission and ask it to discontinue its treatment of that reference. I think this proposal might be innocuous. The Government says it is innocuous. However, it contains some very serious possible implications. As I said before, the IAC had a practice of presenting a draft report with draft recommendations. It may be that once a government sees the draft report with its draft recommendations and finds it not to its liking it may withdraw the reference from the Commission. That would be bad enough in itself because the reference would be withdrawn on the basis of an incomplete consideration by the Commission.

The Commission on many occasions has changed recommendations contained in a draft report before presenting its final report. Those changes are usually made on the basis of consultation with industry and other interested parties. If the Government has the power to respond to draft reports in this way I think this practice will have very serious implications for the way in which the Commission operates. The way in which the Commission may respond- and I suspect it will respond- will be to discontinue its practice of printing and publishing draft reports with draft recommendations. This would have very serious implications for the method of operation of the Commission. I believe the practice of draft reports has been a good one. It has allowed for greater public scrutiny of the work of the Commission. It has given interested parties the opportunity to make a second comment on a reference as it develops in the Commission’s deliberations. Therefore, I think this is a serious change which may not be nearly as innocuous as the Government maintains.

I believe the most serious deficiency of the legislation is the way in which it confirms the Government’s intention to ignore the question of the need for structural adjustment- the structural adjustment which the Prime Minister maintains is just a polite word for the elimination or export of jobs. I believe there are very few industries and unions which do not understand, recognise and even welcome the need for structural adjustment. But structural adjustment cannot take place in isolation. It cannot happen without Government support. That is the very great deficiency in this Government’s approach to the manufacturing industry. It does not have a long term policy for the development of manufacturing industry and to that extent, the IAC is considerably hamstrung in its approach to this question.

Also, the Government adopts an attitude which ignores the cost of protection- that is, protection by way of tariffs, quotas and so on- to the community. Instead of redirecting that cost via the Budget in the form of direct assistance to industry so that industry can adjust sensibly, rationally and comfortably, it simply puts the whole question to one side and tries to prop up industries which are palpably inefficient and whose existence is against the best interests of this country. By ignoring the question of structural adjustment, we are placing at a greater disadvantage our export industries and many other industries which will form the basis of future development in this country. Therefore, I believe the great deficiency of this legislation is the way in which it illustrates quite clearly the intention of the Government to ignore again the important question of providing direct assistance to industry for the purpose of structural change.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hyde) adjourned.

page 389

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply

Debate resumed from 1 March, on motion by Mr Carlton:

That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to:

May it please Your Excellency:

We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to Our most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-As I call the honourable member for Parramatta, I remind the House that the honourable member will be making his maiden speech.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise proudly to make my maiden speech, very conscious of the fact that I am the first Australian Labor Party member to represent the seat of Parramatta for almost 50 years. In fact, 193 1, the year in which I was born, was the year the Labor Party held the seat for the last time. Therefore, I am very proud to have won it back.

I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to pass on my congratulations to Mr Speaker and to the Chairman of Committees upon their election to their high offices. I am sure the impartiality which I have witnessed in the last week and the good humour which they have both exhibited will lead to the continuing support for both of them from this side of the House. May I also at the outset offer my thanks to the Distribution Commissioners who exhibited the good sense and understanding to draw the boundaries in the new electorate of Parramatta with some regard and sensitivity to Parramatta ‘s essential character and historical background and in so doing, of course, making Parramatta a Labor seat. But that is another consideration.

The settlement of Parramatta began with the birth of the colony in 1788. Truly, Parramatta can call itself ‘the cradle city’. It became the first centre of agricultural pursuits in Australia. Notwithstanding this, it did not even have a local branch of the National Country Party of Australia. James Ruse, the first freed convict land owner, grew Australia’s first wheat there in 1790. John Macarthur’s first work as a breeder of merino sheep also began at Elizabeth Farm which is in the Parramatta district. Australia’s oldest building, Elizabeth Farm House, which John Macarthur built for his wife in 1793. still stands, albeit a little haphazardly. It was a monument to crass governmental neglect over the years until my friend the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) in his period as Minister for Urban and Regional Development had sufficient sensitivity to see that funds were made available for its restoration.

The electorate of Parramatta now fully reflects the historical working class character of the area, built as it was not by the bunyip aristocracy but out of the sweat of the workers’ brows. Exhibiting their delight at the recasting of the electorate the constituents of Parramatta, in electing me as their member, registered a heavy four per cent swing back to the Australian Labor Party on the 1975 figures. I am proud to represent people who were more sensitively attuned to the need for a Labor government than perhaps were those in some other areas of Australia. I am sure that in 1980 the rest of Australia will follow Parramatta ‘s lead in that regard. The people I represent know from hard experience that the only chance they and their families have of getting a real share of the riches of this great country come by having a Labor government.

I mention some of the conservative knights who have been my predecessors in Parramatta. I start with Sir Joseph Cook, the conservative Prime Minister in 1913-14, and Sir Frederick Stewart. I remember that name because shortly after he won the seat from Labor in 1 93 1 , just to exhibit his belief in the unemployment problem on which he had been contesting the election in the time of the Scullin Government, he managed to sack my father. That happened a couple of months before I was born. So I find some ironic justice in the fact that I have become the next Labor member in Parramatta. After Sir Frederick Stewart came Sir Howard Beale, Sir Garfield Barwick, Sir Nigel Bowen and, latterly, the present honourable member for Dundasdare I say Sir Phillip Ruddock- to maintain the traditional lineage in Parramatta. At this point I should like to pay tribute to that honourable member’s sincere and diligent work while he was the incumbent in Parramatta. The people of Parramatta recognised that he was a conscientious and hard-working member and returned him to this Parliament on three occasions. They, like me, wish him well in his new seat of Dundas.

With the advent of the Whitlam Government in 1972 the people of western Sydney saw an improvement in their society. This short Camelot, this golden age, saw the people of the west, deprived by 23 years of continuing conservative government, have their expectations for a real equality of opportunity heightened considerably. The doubling of the education budgets in 1973 and 1974 and the subsequent distribution of the funds made available under those budgets on a real needs basis under the Karmel report saw an amazing revolution in the ordinary state schools- the parochial schools in Parramatta where the bulk of the children go. Those schools saw the sort of things they had never seen before. Libraries, science blocks and other real amenities were provided for them. It is such a pity that a return to conservative government saw the underprivileged schools losing out. Elitism returned with A grade private schools gaining increasing endowments from the Government. Many other benefits accrued because of the election of a Labor government. The 1 8-year-olds were given voting rights for the first time. All they had received from the previous Government was the right to enter in the death lottery when numbers were drawn out of a barrel and young people were sent to Vietnam. A lot of the bloom of Parramatta ‘s youth was left lying there.

One of the unique characteristics of this electorate is that 23 per cent of the electors receive a pension or benefit of some kind from the Government. These range from age, invalid and repatriation pensions to handicapped children’s allowances and payments to unmarried mothers. All of these people saw a vast improvement in their lifestyles under a sensitive, compassionate Labor Government. I well remember the annual caravan of pensioners from Parramatta to Canberra. Bus loads of them cap in hand to the Treasurer of the day for an increase in their pensions. Most times they did not get one. I am proud that the Labor Government’s period in office saw the age pension being tied to 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings. The 94 per cent increase in the age pension in that period saw the elderly people of Australia, the pioneers, having some dignity restored to their lives.

The Governor-General’s Speech is traditionally a document which sets out the aspirations, ideas and programs of the incoming government. No statement of the Fraser Government thus far has been so candid and so disturbing as the Speech the Governor-General read on Tuesday of last week. It clearly establishes that the Fraser Government cannot rise above the level of conservative economic primitivism. The people of Australia have been generous in their support and trust of this Government, but this document exposes the incapacity of this Government in dealing with the great issues of our time, the perplexities of sound economic management and the cancer of unemployment. The GovernorGeneral’s Speech contains a few pious platitudes about the unemployed but nothing about government initiatives to reduce the level of unemployment. Indeed, apart from solving Sir John Kerr’s urgent unemployment problemapparently it could not even solve that- the Fraser Government has shown little or no concern for the unemployed.

The Government makes great play of the handouts it has provided to the taxpayer in the form of reductions in personal taxation. No one would deny that the Australian electorate considers that it has been too highly taxed and that there was perhaps some case for tax reform. But the scheme the Fraser Government has introduced greatly benefits the highest income earners rather than those on the average wagethe people who really need help. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has often in the past poured scorn on what he termed ‘Labor’s handout mentality’. But there have been no shortages of handouts under the Liberals. The only difference has been the class and number of recipients. The fistful of $5 notes in the well-known advertisement goes only towards the wealthy sections of the community. The great difference between the Labor Party and the conservative parties rests on the Labor Party’s attitude towards the utility of government involvement in the community. The more we care for the deprived, the more we think about the problems confronting Australian manufacturing industry, the more we confront the hardships faced by the rural community, the more we grapple with the major issues concerning the environment the more we realise the need for increased government intervention on behalf of the community. John F. Kennedy, that revered statesman of unquestioned stature, said in an address in 1963:

The Federal Government is the people, and the Budget is a reflection of the people ‘s needs.

In the Labor Government’s time in office these words were respected and put into action. Certainly the electorate of Parramatta underwent tremendous improvement as a result of the programs of the Federal Labor Government. The Budget really became a reflection of the people’s needs. Millions were provided for the Westmead hospital- a sorely needed amenity in our area. Local government, through the Grants Commission, was given huge increases of money. Public transport and the National Estate also received big grants for the first time. Funds were provided to clean up the Parramatta River, which has been long neglected. Contrast these achievements with our opponents’ lack of interest. The Fraser Government has scrapped the Australian Assistance Plan, which in 1975-76 provided $140,000 for worthwhile projects in the

Parramatta area. The Fraser Government has also abolished the area improvement program, which provided millions of dollars for local government. Educational expenditure has now been reduced so that it does not even cover increased costs due to inflation.

The Fraser Government has deferred the building of the proposed Commonwealth centre in Parramatta. The Labor Government spent $5m purchasing a site for this project in O’Connell Street in 1974 and $300,000 developing it. Upon its election the Fraser Government refused to proceed with this great project. The complex was to include theatres, an art gallery, youth centres, recreational centres, child care facilities and some retailing space. It was the dream of the former Minister for Urban and Regional Development, the honourable member for Reid, who is now in the chamber. If the Government would only go ahead with this project it would be a tremendous boost to the ailing building industry in Parramatta and a cure for some of our soaring unemployment. As well, some 4,500 public servants could be employed near where they live. This would save them the long trip to Sydney every day, with the resultant overtaxing of the public transport system. My predecessor is on record as saying in his speech on the 1976 Budget:

I could not responsibly ask for more money to be spent in my electorate.

I hereby give notice that while I remain the honourable member for Parramatta, and I hope that will be for a very long time, I will continue to scream, yell and shout for more money to be spent in my electorate to equalise the imbalance of the Liberal past and to match the record of the all-too-short Labor Government reign. As a new member of this House, I espouse my utmost faith in Australia’s future. What a pity the Government does not share my optimism. It makes great play of asking people to have confidence in their country’s future. How can the Government expect business or individuals to invest in the country’s future when it, the nation’s biggest business, refuses to give the lead?

The Government’s paranoia with the level of the deficit is stifling economic recovery and therefore any chance of a turnaround in the unemployment situation. What evil is associated with a deficit of, say, $2.7 billion in a Budget of, say, $27 billion? What huge business would not be happy with an overdraft level of 10 per cent? The Government is the nation’s biggest business but it refuses to invest public funds in the nation’s future. Our national assets in the way of natural resources are unlimited to back up such an investment. Economic experts the world over- for example Mr Wittervien of the International Monetary Fund, which is not an altogether unreliable authority- are suggesting that national governments must inject public funds into the system to restore economic viability. However, this Government refuses all advice and pursues its primitive and unsuccessful line.

The reasons the Government advances for its closed-mind commitment to contain inflation as a cure-all for unemployment, no matter what the social cost, do not stand up to examination. Inflation has come down a minimal amount; I will readily agree to that. However, economic growth has not been stimulated, and unemployment continues to grow. The people of Australia cannot afford the price of the Government’s economic strategies with growing unemployment and its associated social and human evils. I am cynical enough to believe that the Prime Minister’s insistence on continuing his misguided economic theories forms part of a sinister and deliberate plan to put the working class of Australia back where the Establishment wants it- right at the bottom of the pile.

I, strangely enough, am a former chairman of a rather large employers’ group. Most of the employers 1 know are decent and compassionate people. I know that a large percentage of them worry about the Government they have supported and the person who leads it. The Prime Minister, the epitome of class conscious conservatives, pursues a line which to honest people is just too transparently obvious. The Government can put enough people out of work with misguided mismangement of the economy and plague the work force with the proposed regressive, oppressive and evil industrial legislation, and the workers will be sufficiently scared to accept anything. The Government can give them reduced real wages. It has already done that. It has taken their weekly wage level back by $ 10 in one year. It can make them work longer hours, give them minimal conditions and break down any welfare benefits that they have achieved over generations of union effort. I instance Medibank, as obviously the Government is about to knock it on the head. They are the Government’s aims. I say that the worm will turn.

As my colleague the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) said, the Prime Minister has made deception a high art form. The workers in my electorate, the real Australians, will not accept i his treatment. They can see through the Government’s superficiality. If- 1 repeat ‘if*- the

Government is sincere in its efforts to reduce unemployment levels it will alter its tack and pour resources into the public sector. Billions of dollars have been found to fund reinvestment allowances and for the reduction in the coal export levy to assist big business- for example, Utah Development Co.- already making bloated corporate profits. For humanity’s sake I beg the Government to show some humanity towards the unemployed. A couple of nights ago the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) spoke disparagingly of the ‘long haired layabouts’ in his electorate in the dole queues. Shame on him. The unemployed in Parramatta do not fit into this category. They are decent human beings. Many of them are recent school leavers, representative of their generation, the most highly educated group of kids we have turned out in our history. These kids do not want handouts. They do not want synthetic schemes. They want what a rich country like Australia should be able to offer them. They want jobs. The remedy is in the Government’s hands- to invest in these kids’ futures because they are our greatest resource. The destiny of our country is in their hands.

In conclusion may I allude briefly to the party which I proudly represent, the Australian Labor Party. A great Australian has recently handed over its leadership. He was pilloried and victimised but is yet unbowed; large in stature, huge in vision. Historians retrospectively will judge Gough Whitlam with greater wisdom and greater mercy than did his contemporaries for the great and sensitive human that he is. The false dawn of a new Australia which Whitlam spawned may yet become a reality under our new leader. The high priest of the Labor movement, that great statesman John Curtin, summed up my hopes for the Australian Labor Party with these words:

To be pushed back- to meet with rebuffs and adversity is but to share the fate of the great movements of history. Our day will come again- it will come soon.

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

-Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker of this House and also on the knighthood that was bestowed on you by Her Majesty in the New Year’s Honours. May I also congratulate the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) on his election as Chairman of Committees. I assure him of my support during the life of this Parliament. It is indeed a great honour for me to be able to speak, as the honourable member for Indi, to the motion: That the Address-in-Reply to the speech of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral be agreed to. I am the thirteenth member for Indi as well as being the thirteenth Cameron in the Federal Parliament. I thank the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) for that information and also for his warm welcome to this House. Let me assure him and also the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) that I will always endeavour to uphold the name of Cameron in this place.

As we have heard during the course of this debate, there are many beautiful electorates in the Commonwealth. Each honourable member has promoted his own electorate. I would like to expound briefly on the attributes of Indi which, in my opinion, has its own particular beauty and interest. It is approximately 28,000 square kilometres in area with just over 60,000 registered electors. The southern and western boundaries follow the Great Dividing Range and the electorate probably has the greatest variance in weather conditions in Australia. Some of the mountains are over 1,900 metres high and have annual snowfalls with a 3 metres precipitation. The northern boundary mainly follows the Indi River which becomes the great River Murray. Downstream from Yarrawonga the western boundary spears south to Kinglake West which is very close to outer Melbourne.

Politically, Indi has had some illustrious representatives in this House. Isaac Isaacs was the first member for Indi, holding the seat from 1901 until 1906 when he became a justice of the High Court of Australia, and Chief Justice in 1930. Isaac Isaacs was knighted in 1928 and appointed Governor-General in 1931- the first Australian to be appointed Governor-General, a position which he held with great distinction until 1936. It is interesting to note that our present Governor-General, Sir Zelman Cowen, is Sir Isaac Isaacs’ biographer. The tenth member for Indi was John McEwen, who held the seat from 1937 to 1949. Sir John McEwen went on to become Deputy Prime Minister, and Prime Minister for a short period. My immediate predecessor was the Honourable Rendle McNeilage Holten who held the seat from 1958 until 1977, providing 19 years of service to this House and to the people of Indi. It is indeed an honour to follow in the footsteps of a man who has given so much service. On behalf of the people of Indi I say: ‘Thank you, Mac Holten ‘.

Indi is a prosperous electorate with the backbone of commerce and industry being primary production- sheep, beef, cropping, dairying, pig raising, timber, tobacco, hops, fruit, vegetables and vineyards being the predominant primary industries. Secondary industry also plays an important part in most towns but particularly in Wodonga, Wangaratta, Benalla, Yarrawonga, Myrtleford, Mansfield, Alexandra, Yea and Euroa- having such diversification as textiles, spinning, engineering, colour television manufacturing, pet food, clothing, foundries, ceramics, saw milling and many other industries. Indi experiences problems similar to those experienced by most other electorates in Australia today, particularly the rural electorates. Inflation and unemployment are the two issues foremost in mind.

I fully support the Government. The policy adopted by the Government is showing effect already and I endorse the restraint in economic expenditure leading to the reduction of inflation which, in turn, will encourage the business sector to expand and renew investment, thus creating further opportunities for employment. Control of inflation will and must remain the Government’s number one priority. The establishment of a national rural bank will be welcomed warmly by all sectors of rural industry. It is vital that loans are made available to potentially viable primary producers as well as presently viable producers. This bank could well be the most momentous step forward in rural financing in the history of this country. I feel strongly that the assessment of potential borrowers from this bank should be in the hands of people who have an intimate working knowledge of both the industry and banking. I cannot stress this point too strongly. It is very pleasing to see that the intention is to provide funds for the reconstruction of existing debts as well as for the purchase of land, stock, machinery and equipment.

I commend the Government on its participation in the thorough investigation of beef carcass classification. This must lead to the early introduction of a national classification scheme which is so necessary for the satisfactory marketing of beef in this country. The successful introduction of this scheme would immediately allow investigation and implementation of other areas of marketing reform. It is heartening to note the Government’s continuing endeavours to obtain access to overseas markets for rural products. All honourable members know how difficult success in this field can be but primary production is still the greatest single export earner and the pressure must be maintained until further overseas markets are achieved and existing markets are expanded. It must always be remembered that people need to be fed, clothed and sheltered and, basically, only primary production can satisfy these requirements. Significantly large areas of Australia are in the grip of drought and I was very pleased to hear in the Governor-General’s Address that the Government places a high priority on assisting rural producers through this present difficult period. History has shown that the combination of drought and depressed markets has led to financial ruin in farming communities.

Indi has a significant dairy industry involving over 800 licensed dairy farmers who, along with the total Victorian dairy industry, have a proven ability to market dairy products more economically than most other areas in Australia. The majority feeling in this industry is one of disquiet with regard to the share allocated to them under Stage II of the Australian Dairy Industry Marketing Arrangements as agreed to by the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in Adelaide on 23 January 1978. The Victorian dairy farmers are united in their desire to obtain a more equitable share of entitlements and I hope that through discussion a satisfactory agreement can be achieved.

Indi, like all other electorates, relies on small business or service industries to maintain everyday life and it is particularly pleasing to see the Government making moves to assist in this field. Nevertheless, wherever I go throughout the electorate a major complaint is crippling trunk line telephone charges. This applies to the manufacturer, small businessman and farmer. They point out that it is impossible to conduct business at night to take advantage of reduced rates. They feel disadvantaged compared with the city businessman and cannot understand why Telecom cannot investigate means of making the use of telephone communication in country areas more equitable. The suggestion is put forward that all telephone usage should be on a time rather than a distance basis. Endeavours to encourage decentralisation of industry into country areas are severely handicapped by this extremely heavy cost factor. It is easy to say that nothing can be done but surely, through a study of systems in other countries, some relief can be achieved. I stress that this is the subject most discussed by businessmen, big and small, in my electorate.

The Government must be congratulated on its move to assist in removing the freight differential on petroleum products. Once again it is a move designed to make country business and living more equitable with the major sea-based cities. When one looks at the discounting of petrol by some city service stations one wonders at the margin of profit which must be available to enable profitable trading still to exist. It must be remembered that country people and country industry are highly dependent on road transport and are therefore severely affected by high fuel costs.

Tourism is the industry with probably the greatest immediate growth potential of any industry in Indi. Mount Buller, Mount Hotham, Mount Buffalo, Falls Creek and Mount Bogong offer some of the finest downhill and cross country skiing available in this country. This is a booming family participation sport and it has enormous tourist attraction. The mountains and valleys offer superb walking and climbing in a natural environment. The environment is much as it was when Australia was discovered. Rivers, streams and lakes offer boating, fishing and water skiing in abundance. It is pleasing to note that the Government is to appoint a select committee on tourism to examine the significance and potential of the tourist industry.

Owing to the mountainous terrain of Indi there are many pockets of the community receiving a poor to impossible television signal. All honourable members know the frustration experienced when our own television sets break down. These people virtually live with this situation all the time. I understand that at the moment an inquiry is being conducted into the feasibility of Australia obtaining its own telecommunications satellite. Naturally our problems will be at an end if this eventuates. If this is not possible I will be asking the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) to investigate the feasibility of communities purchasing active deflectors or non-frequency changing translators on a co-operative basis under the supervision of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board but serviced by the co-operative. I understand that the equipment costs under $ 1 ,000 and can be placed on a hill or high terrain. It bends the television signal down into the poor reception area.

The mountainous area of Indi lends itself to the catchment and storage of water. Lakes Eildon, Mokoan, Nillahcootie, Hume and Mulwala and the Dartmouth and Buffalo Dams bear proof of the achievements of Federal and State governments in this vital area. Australia is a dry continent and the conservation of water must be a top priority. Many of the more economic projects are completed and governments must be looking now at the more expensive but equally vital schemes. Eventually every available litre of water must be conserved. This will be a costly program and I commend the Government for its action in providing $200m over five years to the States for this purpose. Problems exist in all sectors of the community and it is our responsibility as members of parliament to endeavour to find solutions and, if possible, to prevent them. This is my personal aim and I intend to pursue it in the electorate of Indi as well as in Canberra.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-During this debate I wish to touch on several matters, some of which cropped up during the election campaign of 1977 and others which are relevant to the terms of this debate. The first thing that ought to be said about the political situation in which we now find ourselves in Australia is that the Australian Labor Party does not intend to sit here for the next three years saying merely that it can pick up a few seats in 1980 and then, perhaps, be returned to government or have a chance of being returned to government in the early 1980s. Nor are we going to take the course that some of us may have been lulled into taking following the 1975 general election and in any election held after that period that everything would have to be better for us and that we would continue to win additional divisions for this Federal Parliament. Based on the mistakes we have made in the past, together with the mistakes this Government is making in its relationship with the Australian community, it is our intention that the Labor Party shall sit on the Government benches in 1980 with Bill Hayden as the Prime Minister of this country. I think there is every reason for Labor people throughout this country to take up the political fight as we have now had it presented to us. It will be imperative for our side of politics to involve a great many more people in the Australian political scene than has been the case in past years.

There are fewer people participating in politics in this country than in any other comparable country. It is to the detriment of the dialogue and the debate that must take place in this country on the really important political issues that the colleges and the campuses are going quiet on politics. It will be, as it has always been, the responsibility of the Labor Party to have these people interested in politics, to have them discussing major issues and to have them wondering whether we are ever going to overcome this massive problem with which we are confronted at the moment, to see whether the social reform which will be required for the future economy of Australia can be undertaken by the present system of politics in Australia as we have it today.

It is not the intention of the Labor Party to go to sleep until 1980 and then hope that by default we will pick up a few additional members in the onslaught we might have in the 1983 general election. Ours must be a very positive approach. We have to involve a lot more people in supporting our cause. We have to explain our policies a great deal better than perhaps we have done in the past. There will be absolutely no room for complacency in the Labor movement as we go about dismantling this Government which, in our opinion, is as bad as any Liberal-Country Party government since Federation.

I wish to touch on a range of matters but I shall deal first with the question of election funding. This is a matter on which I have spoken continually in this House. From reports in the newspapers, I understand that the Liberal Party and the National Country Party have decided that their secretariats ought to have the matter looked at by people in the party machines. I raise this question not only in relation to the 1977 campaign, but also in relation to attacks that have been made on the trade unions by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) only last week. Our position on this matter is quite clear. We believe that the present system of funding of political parties leaves itself open to all types of allegations of corruption. If one wanted a clearer example of what sorts of allegations could be made, one would only have to look to Question Time this morning when questions were directed to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as to the need for his cancelling of a contract made with a major Japanese company in order that a complaint by an American company could be sorted out. If, in the case of IBM Australia Ltd- the complaining company- there is a receipt made out by it to the Liberal Party for any major political donation at the last election or previous elections, no one in Australia will be convinced that there is not some relationship between that donation and the decision made by the Prime Minister to end the contract with the Japanese company.

These allegations survive because of the way in which the laws are framed in Australia. As I have said repeatedly in this Parliament, it is to the detriment of every parliamentarian and of all the institutions, both Federal and State, that we continue with the laws in their present form. I am specifically critical of the Government parties referring this matter back to their own party machines. These laws are laws made in the Parliament of Australia. The changes to those laws and the discussion on the reform of those laws ought to be undertaken by the people who participate in the national Parliament, namely the members of parliament. To shunt this matter away into a little corner and hope that it will be forgotten is the only aim of some honourable members on the Government benches who believe that under the present laws they have an enormous advantage over all the other contestants in politics, particularly the Labor Party.

We understand that in 1977 the Liberal Party and the National Country Party spent between $6m and $7m campaigning in this country. We tried to raise approximately $ 1.25m. We are now reaching the stage where our campaign procedures and expenditures in Australia are similar to those in the United States. Even the United States has seen fit to change the laws on political funding, making public the names of those people who make donations to either of the candidates or the major political parties. The laws in Australia must be changed for the benefit of all concerned.

The Deputy Leader of the National Country Party took time out during the week to attack the trade unions for making political donations. The trade unions are the only group in this country which make public the fact that they have made a political donation. If the Australian Workers Union, the Metal Workers Union or the Waterside Workers Federation make a political donationand usually such a donation would go to the Labor Party- that donation is always made public. There is no secret about a donation from a trade union, nor can there be, because its balance sheet will show it. Members of the union have every right to go to the union meeting and object and oppose the donation being made.

But in the case of public companies, this is not the rule, and every honourable member opposite knows it. Companies in Australia are making political donations without anybody else in the company, apart from the hierarchy, being aware of the amount that is being set aside. Amounts being made available to the Liberal and National Country parties are amounts that cannot be raised through the normal channels. The amounts being donated are of such proportions that they ought to be made public in the public interest, the same way as donations from the trade unions are made public. We have asked time and time again- and I do not want to take the whole 20 minutes allotted for my speech on this question- for the appointment of a parliamentary committee to look at the system of electoral laws and the funding of political parties. There should be a public register of those who make donations to political parties so that all is out in the open. When people write in the newspapers that we are all at the bar and that we are drunk, that nobody has respect for us and that we are bludgers, Government supporters are up in arms. They practically want to have a judicial inquiry about it. But nothing will ever come of such action because that type of view is now a fact of life in the thinking of the Australian populace. It will continue to be their thinking whilst we try to hide behind laws such as that applying to political donations for some narrow advantage at election time. The thinking of the Australian people also will be that for one reason or another we are easily bought off as such donations do not have to be made public.

I appeal to the Government and to those honourable members sitting on the Government benches not to send this matter off to their respective parties, but to bring it into this House. We are not holding some sort of inquiry into what has happened over the last 20 years. We want to come up with some solutions as to what should happen over the next 20 years. If we were to do the same as every other country has done, that is exactly what would happen in Australia. Let us not wait for one of the States to make the first move. We should make the first move. We are the national Parliament; we are answerable to the people right throughout Australia, not one portion of it, and we ought to be giving a lead to the State parliaments as to what ought to happen.

I wish to refer to the most recent innovation in relation to this matter. The Houghton report was brought down in the House of Commons just 18 months ago. The committee was set up by the Government and consisted of an array of people. It visited other countries; it talked to business; it talked to trade unions; it talked to individuals. It talked to all interested parties throughout the United Kingdom and many other countries. What were its recommendations? They were exactly the same as those that have been in evidence in Sweden, Germany and Austria for many years. It said that not only is it proper that there should be State aid for political parties, but that the democracy we know is very much dependent on the role of political parties and that if the role of political parties and those people in them can be enhanced by State aid to political parties, such action is of benefit to the community.

We ought to look at some of the other arguments, apart from the attitude held by many honourable members opposite who say: ‘If we can get donations under the present system, we would have to be crazy to change it’. They know under what circumstances the system will be changed. If it is not changed by means of common sense, discussion and reform in the manner I have prescribed in this Parliament, corruption and sensationalism will do so. That will be the next step in Australian politics. Someone will be revealed to be involved in a Watergate-type scandal or some other matter involving political parties or politicians being bought off in the manner in which the Lockheed Corporation did so throughout the world in trying to ensure that it was awarded contracts.

We have been slow enough in making a change. Every other country with a political system comparable to our own has already moved in that direction. What they have done might not be perfect. Maybe we would have to make some changes to suit the Australian conditions. At least we have enough talent in this Parliament to be able to sort out that sort of thing. We ought to be able to ascertain what mistakes those countries have made and incorporate remedies in a report. Today we debated the re-appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. Honourable members entered the debate one after the other to say that their offices were too small or to talk about the fact that their office was the old barber shop. I said that there is no ventilation in my office. The working conditions are terrible. But very few honourable members say in the House: ‘We do not have sufficient research backup; we are not able to do the sort of work we ought to be doing on policies so that we can come up with some answers to the problems with which we will be confronted over the next 20 or 30 years’.

That is the area into which people such as the members of the Houghton Committee in the United Kingdom inquired. I do not think any honourable member opposite, using the wildest words, would describe the House of Commons as being so very different from the House of Representatives. If the parliamentarians of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Austria and the United States collectively agree that state aid is required for political parties, that there should be a public register listing the names of private donors to political parties, why on earth can such a proposition not fee accepted in Australia? The Liberal and National Country parties must have an ulterior motive in rejecting such a proposition.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– By how much would you raise taxes to pay for the job to be done?

Mr YOUNG:

-The Houghton report in the United Kingdom suggested as its first recommendation, which I understand is about to be adopted, that £Stg1.5m be made available in the first year of operation as aid to political parties. Such aid will be based on the percentage vote received by the political parties at the previous election or according to the number of candidates elected. So the Government parties are in a very advantageous position to take liberty of such a proposition at the moment.

Mr Neil:

– Would you raise union dues?

Mr YOUNG:

– Some unions in the United Kingdom were opposed to the implementation of a system of state aid to political parties and some supported it. A much smaller amount of money is raised in Australia at the moment by the Labor Party from the trade unions than was the case previously. The amount is getting smaller. The trade unions are in no position to make major donations to any political party. The interesting point about the 1977 election is that in a number of letters which the Labor Party received from sections of private enterprise the sentiment was expressed that they wanted the laws in Australia to be changed. They said that they did not want to discuss in their board rooms the subject of political donations but were afraid not to do so because the Government might get wind of it and find that they were not supporting the Liberal and National Country parties. The whole situation smells at the moment. The Government parties have every reason to change the system. If the Government were to set up a committee of the Parliament, as has been done in other countries, there is no reason why the present laws would not be changed.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Mr YOUNG:

– Before I conclude my remarks on the question of the funding of political parties, I have sought permission from the Government to have incorporated in Hansard the terms of reference of the Houghton Committee set up by the House of Commons in 1975, together with that Committee’s recommendations. I seek leave to have that document incorporated.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

BACKGROUND

Introduction

  1. . 1 The Committee was set up by the Government in May 1975, with the following terms of reference: ‘To consider whether, in the interests of Parliamentary democracy, provision should be made from public funds to assist political parties in carrying out their functions outside Parliament; to examine the practice of other Parliamentary democracies in this field, and to make recommendations as to the scope of political activities to which any such provision should relate and the method of its allocation. ‘

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend the introduction of a system of state financial aid for political parties in the United Kingdom.

Such aid should take the form of:

  1. annual grants to be paid from Exchequer funds to the central organisations of the parties for their general purposes, the amounts being determined according to the extent of each party’s electoral support;
  2. at local level, a limited reimbursement of the election expenses of Parliamentary and local government candidates.

In order to qualify for a grant a party must at the previous general election have either:

  1. saved the deposits of its candidates in at least six constituencies; or
  2. had at least two of its candidates returned as Members; or
  3. had one of its candidates returned as a Member, and received as a party a total of not less than 150,000 votes.

The amount of the annual grant payable to each of the qualifying parties shall be calculated on the basis of 5p for each vote cast for its candidates at the previous general election.

The scheme for the limited reimbursement of candidates’ election expenses should apply to all Parliamentary elections, and to all elections for county and district councils in England and Wales, regional, island and district councils in Scotland, and the Greater London Council and London borough councils.

Reimbursement should be restricted to those candidates who poll at least one-eighth of the votes cast, and the amount to be reimbursed should be the candidates’ actual election expenses up to a limit of half his legally permitted maximum expenditure. Payment shall be made directly to the candidate.

It is recommended that the first payment of the proposed annual grants payable to the parties should be on 1 April 1977, and that the scheme for the limited reimbursement of candidates’ election expenses should operate for all Parliamentary and relevant local government elections held on or after 1 April 1977.

The total cost of state aid to the political parties under these proposals is estimated at, on average, about £2Va million a year. Of this, the annual grants to the parties would comprise about £ 1 ,440,000 and the reimbursement of candidates’ election expenses approximately £860,000 a year (including £360,000 in respect of Parliamentary candidates and £500,000 for local government candidates).

It is proposed that the reimbursement schemes should be extended to include elections to the European Parliament and to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies as occasion arises.

Mr YOUNG:

-Another matter that I wish to raise while we are considering the AddressinReply is the question of wages in Australia. This question had become so relevant this week when what the Opposition believes is a very bad decision for wage and salary earners was handed down in the national wage case. It has been the intention of this Government since December 1 975 when it was elected to office to reduce real wages continually. The Government has had continual success on that front. The increase in real wages has been undeniably far less than has been the rise in the cost of living during that twoyear period. Based on average weekly earnings of about $200 a week, working men and women in Australia are now $ 10 a week worse off in real terms than they would have been two years ago.

So the onslaught by this Government on wages and salaries continues in the very vain hope that this will be one economic instrument that will be able to bring Australia out of the economic recession in which we find ourselves. What will happen, and what I believe is happening in the minds of those people who control the Government- the Prime Minister and some others- is that those people are intent on trying to abolish wage indexation. Their commitment to wage indexation as given to the electorate in December 1975 is vastly different from the view they now express at national wage hearings. I believe that they see as a way of cutting back the total national wage bill the abolition of indexation in order to allow separate units in the work force to obtain the wage increases that they can, depending upon their industrial strength, while many people in the mainstream of the labour force would be unable to keep up with the cost of living in any way at all. I think that the axe is hanging over the head of wage indexation by virtue of only one attitude, that is, the attitude of the Federal Government here in Canberra. The majority of States and the majority of people who appeared in the first national wage case for 1 978 supported a wage increase of one kind or another. The exceptions were the Federal Government and the West Australian Government.

People talk about selling manufactured goods and a consumer led recovery. It is obviously impossible for consumers- the wage and salary earners- to bring about any consumer led recovery whilst their overall real wages are being continually cut. Despite the arguments that take place, it does not matter whether the national wage hearings are quarterly, half-yearly or annual: If real wages continue to be cut in the way they have been in the last two years, if petrol prices continue to increase in the manner in which they have increased and continue to be ignored by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as being relevant to the cost of living increases that ought to be passed on to wage and salary earners, if the Government continues with its threat to abolish Medibank and thus thrusts up health insurance costs by what we believe will be about $ 1 9 a week per family, there will not be any consumer led recovery. There will be consumer led gloom which will only dampen down an already sick economy.

The Government’s policy on wages is completely negative and the Commission ‘s decision falls into line with the Government’s attitude. It seems to me that the Commission was looking more at the election result of last December than at the submissions that were put before it by all the people representing the trade union movement and some State governments. The maintenance of real wages is an important aspect in getting to consumers the goods that are manufactured in Australia and the goods that are imported into Australia. If the income of consumers is continually cut it will be disastrous for any sort of economic recovery.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned.

page 399

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I do. In the debate this afternoon the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) in his maiden speech alluded to certain words I was alleged to have used last week in relation to unemployed people. The normal tradition in this House is that honourable members should at least be accurate in their maiden speeches. I have never made statements of the kind he attributed to me. I should like to remind the honourable member as a new member in this place that correctness and facts- not distortions- are something that most people respect.

page 399

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I move:

This Bill and the Northern Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1978, which I shall introduce shortly, are in the same form as Bills which were introduced into the House last year but which lapsed upon the dissolution of the House. The purpose of the Bills is to permit the making of regulations fixing fees to be charged in the supreme courts of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. In the past, fees have been fixed either by rules of court or by ordinance. The previous Labor Government had a policy that, generally speaking, court fees should not be charged. In pursuance of that policy the judges of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory supreme courts amended the rules of each court to abolish most fees in those courts. This Government believes that court fees should be imposed, so that those who have recourse to the courts will contribute towards their cost. When this matter was raised with the judges, the Australian Capital Territory judges pointed out, quite properly, that the question of court fees appeared to have taken on some political significance because of the difference of view between the previous Labor Government and this Government, and that it may therefore be more appropriate for fees to be imposed by the Executive Government. The Government respects the position of the Territory judges in not wishing to be involved in a matter of this kind that might be the subject of political difference. Accordingly, the present Bills are brought in.

I would add that the Federal Court of Australia Act and the Family Law Act each empowers the making of regulations to provide for fees payable in respect of proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia and in the Family Court of Australia and other courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. The proposed amendments to the Territory supreme court Acts therefore bring them into line with the other courts created by the Parliament in this respect. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 399

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I move:

This Bill is a companion measure to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1978 which I have just introduced and fulfils the same functions as I outlined in my second reading speech for that Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 400

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-This legislation was introduced in the last Parliament. It lapsed with the rising of the House. It now comes to us again in almost identical form. In that period we have had any amount of time to consider what is in it. A lot of extravagant statements have been made about it, not least in the chamber this afternoon. The Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1978 in essence requires by law the Industries Assistance Commission to continue some practices that it was in the main already undertaking on the request of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

The Industries Assistance Commission, in the words of the second reading speech, is required in its reports to report on all relevant information to enable fully informed decisions to be made by the Government. That, I believe, is unexceptional except for one rider that I would put on my endorsement of the provision in the Bill covering that aspect. I have a fear that the Industries Assistance Commission will be at times required to report on things that are not germane to its special skills. I think that that would be inappropriate. If the IAC left the economic area the advice given might not be the best available to the Government. What is more, if it were to make a mistake in non-economic judgment that it is required to make, the error may be used to discredit the Commission. The Minister in his second reading speech states:

I emphasise that the changes will not compromise the independence of the Commission. 1 agree with the Minister. The changes will not compromise the independence of the Commission.

Mr Young:

– They do not compromise it? They change it.

Mr HYDE:

– They do not change the independence of the Commission.

Mr Young:

– They do.

Mr HYDE:

– I will come to that. A requirement that has exercised the minds of speakers from the other side of the House is that the Minister may direct the Commission as to the priority it should observe in having regard to its policy guidelines in the performance of its functions. It would compromise the independence of the Commission if the Government were to say that the Commission would not report on a certain matter. But the Government cannot say that. The Commission can be required to report in such a way that any one of the guidelines is taken into any level of account in any report that it makes. The Commission can still say that the consequences of a line of action on which the Minister required it to report- bearing in mind the parameters the Minister laid down- are excessively costly. It can still point out that the level of protection this year would need to be X per cent, the following year X plus so much and the year after that X plus so much. The Commission could go on and point out to the public through this Parliament the dire consequences of accepting the Government’s line. That is the element, the nature and the requirement of its independence. Were it not able to do so, I assure the House that I would be extremely upset. In the closing stages of the Minister’s speech he gave an important undertaking which I would not like anyone to forget. He said:

Temporary assistance will not, therefore, be provided in such a way that it effectively removes the need for industries to adapt to changing circumstances, rather it will be provided so as to allow industries to take appropriate action to adapt to such changes.

The Industries Assistance Commission is required to keep that fact in mind at all times as is the Temporary Assistance Authority. If the Government accepts the advice that flows in those circumstances we will not go too far wrong.

I asked a question in the House two days ago concerning reference to the IAC of the remaining references in the continuing review of the high cost industry. I asked when the reference would be made. When the review is finished we can at least take a few slow steps- it should take 20 years- to restructure Australia’s industry. If we keep stepping in the wrong direction we will never ever restructure Australia ‘s industry. I was told by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs that the references would not be sent to the Commission because the industries under reference would experience a slackening of confidence. I asked at what time a reference could be made to the IAC for an industry that knows it is receiving very high levels of protection and therefore is, prima facie, uncompetitive without affecting confidence in that industry. At the same time we cannot refuse to make the reference without affecting the confidence in those industries that depend upon the products of the highly protected industry as inputs to their own industry.

In the Governor-General’s Speech it was asserted- I believe correctly- that we have made considerable progress towards economic recovery. Inflation has been halved. Investment is substantially up when compared with the same quarters for the preceding year. Surveys of business confidence indicate that we have taken some of the steps up the hill to economic recovery. The record is not bad at all when we consider that we went into the economic trough later than other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and, on the evidence of the lead indicators, we are coming out of it faster than all the OECD countries with the possible exception of one.

I think under the circumstances it is a little unreasonable to suggest that a reference which will take two years to complete should not be made to the IAC. On the other hand, things are not all bad on the protection front. Let me refer to a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) to the Australian Woolgrowers’ and Graziers’ Council. The letter has been made public. I will read, for the benefit of honourable members, the paragraph concerning tariffs and import quotas. The letter came from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister in response to a letter from the Australian Woolgrowers’ and Graziers’ Council. It states:

I see little that I can add to the comments I made on this subject in my address to the Australian Farmers ‘ Federation on 19 October 1977, and of which you are aware. I summed up our views then by saying that it was the Government’s policy, and certainly the policy of the National Country Party, that we should make progress in the direction of generally lower tariff levels, and that this objective must be pursued with increasing resolution as Australia emerged from its current economic difficulties.

I said further that it would be my Party’s aim to ensure that this objective was pursued with determination and that if we saw signs that there was any loss of enthusiasm or watering-down of the commitment, then we would be making it our business to see that those departures from the proper course were corrected.

I accept the need for short-term policies to he consistent with longer-term objectives so that structural adjustment will be aided rather than inhibited, but I also take the view that tariff reform and structural adjustment should be related to the capacity of the economy to accommodate such changes.

Your proposal for the use of direct subsidies rather than tariffs or import quotas in particular circumstances is one which merits further consideration, by both politicians and Government officials.

Another paragraph of the letter referred to other matters but then the Deputy Prime Minister had this to say:

I support provision of assistance to the rural sector to compensate for the effects of the tariff protection afforded to other sectors.

Apparently, the Minister accepted the estimates of the Australian Woolgrowers’ and Graziers’ Council on what that support would cost. The Deputy Prime Minister further stated:

As I have said before, we must pursue the objective of generally lower tariff levels and, while that is occuring, industries which must cany the burden of tariff protection should be assisted by compensatory measures.

This letter was written in response to work conducted by the AWGC which suggested that the tariff compensation necessary to do what the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested would be in the order of $2,000m a year. Any notion that this House could budget for a sum of that magnitude is quite unreal. I think that the commitment of the Deputy Prime Minister to the unwatered.down progress towards lower tariffs is an extremely important step. The reason most people fear a reduction in tariffs is employment. Absolutely no one I know is suggesting that they should be reduced in a rabid manner. Tariffs should be reduced only at a very gradual rate. The fears of those people who do not want any reduction in tariffs- in fact they advocate higher tariffs- are mostly related to the question of unemployment. It has been suggested in two recent reports of the Industries Assistance Commissionthe most recent report on the motor vehicle industries and the report on the textile inquiries- that the effect of tariffs and other barriers to a free flow of goods in and out of Australia is not to enhance employment opportunities but, on the contrary, to lessen them. This should not surprise us when we think about the matter. If we protect high cost industries the goods of those industries must necessarily cost more to the people who consume them. Therefore, these people who buy those goods will have less to spend on the goods manufactured by other industries, more competitive industries. It also means -

Mr Innes:

– Put a bit of zip into it.

Mr HYDE:

– I do not want to put zip into it. I want to give the honourable member time to listen. It also means that the cost of these high cost goods, through the wage indexation process, will be passed on through higher wages to all industries, including the more competitive industries. So the more competitive industries necessarily must be caught in a profit squeeze. The resources that might have flowed to those industries- for example, through new investment and sales they might have made- will be made respectively within and from the highly protected industries.

So we have a relative growth in the uncompetitive industries at the expense of the more competitive industries, which is another way of saying that we will produce less- that our gross domestic product will be lower. We will be poorer. Some people have argued: Yes, but that does not necessarily cause unemployment. I submit that those people have assumed a perfect labour market in which the price of labour would fall with any fall in the gross domestic product or would rise more slowly because the gross domestic product was rising more slowly. But if on the other hand wages are sticky on the lower side and will not fall- with an indexation process I do not see how the situation can be other than thatthen anything that diminishes the size of the total wealth we produce diminishes employment opportunity. Therefore any attempt to restrict trade diminishes employment opportunity in Australia. It must necessarily be so.

I am not saying that there is not a substantial cost in making change itself. Of course there is. If we want to move resources rapidly from one place to another, they will not immediately find a new home or a new useful employment. We can make our changes only slowly. Let no one believe that we create employment by raising trade barriers. In fact, we lessen our employment opportunities. Very gradually, but always stepping in the right direction, we ought to tackle the task of lowering those trade barriers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The original question was that this Bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Adelaide has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr Short:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Ballarat.

Mr Young:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable member for Port Adelaide seeking the call?

Mr Young:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I looked at the honourable member but he gave me no indication that he sought the call.

Mr Young:

– I was smiling at you. I do not often do that to a member of the National Country Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I apologise to the honourable member for Port Adelaide but he will understand that I could have been taken by surprise. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The House is debating an extremely important subject. I want to make some comment about the controversy over the Industries Assistance Commission and perhaps on the commitments of the major political parties and the extent to which that had a bearing on the last federal election. It was my experience that some unpleasantness was expressed about the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in relation to three major industries, textiles, clothing and footwear, during that election. I think that this is the appropriate debate in which to express a view not only about what occurred but also about the person who manufactured the episode. I agree with the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) who has just spoken in the debate that there is no easy way to solve these problems. I think that the more we delve into the unemployment problem that we have today the more we can see the futility of those who merely say that greater protection can overcome all the problems.

The real problem we have today- I will say a little more about it later on- in the motor car industry is not that we do not have enough cars, not that we cannot produce vehicles efficiently enough for the size of our domestic market or that our work force is lazy and does not work as well as other work forces throughout the rest of the world. There is real buyer resistance to buying the local product in Australia at the moment. Until the industry is able to overcome those problems, no talk of protection, tariff barriers or trade will allow the car industry to recover.

During the 1 977 election campaign, at a time when I was visiting Western Australia, statements were made by industry leaders of the apparel manufacturers that they had word from the Australian Labor Party that Labor had committed itself to be a free trade party. I do not know anyone who has ever looked at current or past Australian politics who could ever in his wildest dreams describe the Labor Party as or having been a free trade party. Some of our members may have bordered on that dream on occasions, but by and large the Australian Labor Party has been very much a party of concensus on the question of trade. Nevertheless, this accusation was made against the Labor Party. I happened to hear it. It was of some interest to me as I was the shadow Minister and I had not been contacted by the people involved. Nevertheless, these industry leaders decided it was a good ploy to try to bargain with the two major political parties as to where they stood on the question of protection for the footwear, clothing and textile industries during this period so that perhaps they could squeeze a little bit more out of whoever happened to be the victor.

I was a little appalled by that tactic in the first instance. Nevertheless, I sought to make inquiries as to how this could have come about. Over the two years I have been shadow Minister the industries generally had been extremely good in their communications with me. I had no reason to complain at all about the way I was contacted or brought into discussions that were held about the state of the industry. This was a very interesting period because many of Australia’s industries during those two years, as is the case today, faced many problems and looked for government intervention in many forms to overcome them. However, there can be no doubt in my mind, having seen the way in which the apparel manufacturers, and particularly Mr Ray Aitcheson their spokesman at the time had acted, that this was a deliberate attempt not only to get more out of the Liberal-Country Party Government by way of a commitment but also to try to see that some disadvantage was suffered by the Labor Party. I say this because at no time did anybody from these industries try to contact me as the Labor spokesman.

When, finally, I contacted the industry close to the election day after this matter had received maximum publicity and the damage had been done I received an apology from their spokesman who said that normally during the two-year period they would have contacted me as the spokesman for the Labor Party but that during the height of the election they were unable to do so and that they were extremely sorry. They were sorry for making accusations against the Labor Party, for trying to bring major political parties into a bargaining position as to which party could offer and which could not offer the most protection. I do not want to spend much time on this most despicable action by Mr Aitcheson. It is for the apparel manufacturers to determine who speaks and who acts for them. But he certainly will not be speaking to me.

In addition, one of the problems that arose was the infantile attitude of the now Government when the pressure was put on it. Up went the flag and out came the words. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said: ‘We will do everything for those industries. No one will be displaced in the shoe, textile or clothing industries. We are going to be the party of jobs. ‘ Any trade unionist or any trade union official who believes a spokesman from the Liberal or National Country Parties on this question before he believes a member of the Labor Party is a fool. The Government was bludgeoned into taking this position when common sense should have reigned. We looked at the number of people who were working in those industries. We were told by the Prime Minister that no one working in those industries would lose his job. That statement must be treated in the same way as so many other statements that he made about what was going to happen. We were told that the Government would protect the jobs of every worker in the shoe, textile and clothing industries. Therefore it was with some amazement I found that during 1977, the year of this party of great protection, 19,000 people in the shoe, clothing and textile industries lost their jobs. I found that 19,000 people had already lost their jobs in the same year in which the Prime Minister had said: ‘In future we will protect all the jobs’.

It is gross stupidity for anyone to believe, or to commit himself by saying, that all jobs can be saved in all industries all the time. Manufacturers inform us that the investment allowance alone will assist people to replace labour by machines. Already, the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent through the investment allowance which will continue in operation until 1985 have displaced people, particularly those who work in labour-intensive industries. How does the Government trade off its commitment to the investment allowance with its promise to save all the jobs? Will the Government, perhaps through its industrial relations policies, seek by force to ensure that any company which uses the investment allowance will not be allowed to displace any employee in its industry? The Government was very stupid when it made the commitment in the election campaign that it would save all the jobs.

We all know what is required in relation to the ures that are being applied in various sectors of industry. We know which areas are growing and which areas are declining. We know the pressures that will be applied on us continually, and in a far more harsh way than they have previously, by some of our major trading partners. We know what will happen to workers in Australia as a result of the continuing population explosion in Asia. We know that industry will always chase cheap labour. No policy will prevent that, no matter what company is involved. Multi-national or national companies which want to search for cheap labour will continue to do so. In many respects the Labor Party welcomes activities of this kind because they provide employment for people whose standard of living is way below that enjoyed already by Australians. What we need is a bit of common sense on this question rather than the making of mad rash promises that cannot be carried out. The Prime Minister has said that the current employment levels in the shoe, clothing and textile industries will be maintained. For that to be the case what he must be able to say to the Parliament from now on is: ‘When I made that statement there were 120,000 employees in these three major industries and when I leave this place as Prime Minister of Australia there will still be at least 120,000 employees in them’. It is absolute nonsense to believe that this will be the case. Anyone who loses his job in the industry in the foreseeable future and who tries to hold the Prime Minister to that promise will be sadly disillusioned.

I now refer to the car industry, a subject that has been raised by previous speakers. A very prominent spokesman for the car industryprobably its most prominent spokesman- told me on the basis of his expertise in this field that the car or auto industry parallels the health of the economy: If the economy is healthy, plenty of cars are being sold; but if the economy is sick, not so many cars are being sold. At the moment, according to his theory- and I have never seen him at a Labor Party meeting- the economy is very sick. The Government says that it has to protect all jobs. To achieve this, it says that it must reduce the existing quota restricting imported motor vehicles to 94,000 units. That quota was set as a result of the most recent inquiry into that industry. We used to have one inquiry a year; now they are running at two a year. It appears that, as a result of the muddling performance given by this Government on the question of the motor industry, we will have an inquiry every month.

Like most industries, the auto industry, as has been stated time and time again in this Parliament, services a very small domestic market. Many of the people who moved into the second car family field, particularly at the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s, became consumers of the small imported car. The local industry ignored to its peril the desire by the consumer, influenced by price range and facilities, for such cars. Our industry is declining. It has been for the last 18 months. We have a small domestic market. When this Government came to power, it had the opportunity to rationalise one section of the industry- the four-cylinder engine section.

The former Labor Government told the car industry that the market in Australia was too small to allow any further fragmentation of the auto industry. So the four-cylinder engines had to be made at one plant. That one plant was to be at Lonsdale in South Australia, which had the capacity to produce all the four-cylinder engines that all the major companies in Australia needed. But when this Government came to power again it bowed to General Motors-Holden Pty Ltd, Ford Australia Ltd, Chrysler Australia Ltd and the new Japanese entrants and said: ‘We will have four-cylinder engine plants all over the place and if we cannot get enough of these engines we will have a quota for them to be imported’. Not only was our industry fragmented, not only did we have a small domestic market, and not only was this a costly production exercise but also we made it more costly. In the last major decision Australia had to make on the auto industry it was made an even more costly proposition to produce that product.

The situation of GMH, which is working at 70 per cent capacity and which lost $8m in the last financial year according to its books, is a situation which GMH will not put up with for long. It has plants spread all over Australia. GMH has plants in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. I suggest that high on the agenda of GMH must be the possibility of rationalising its production and perhaps of closing down one of its plants. There must be some doubt in the minds of the new Japanese entrants about whether in fact it is wise for them to come into Australia to participate in the so-called 85 per cent local content plan. We already had overutilisation of plants prior to the Japanese entry into the market. Now we will have more manufacturers than the United States of America, which has a massive domestic market.

Obviously one has to say that the situation is not the fault of the IAC. No matter how we change the rules of the IAC and irrespective of the nature of the report it brings back, the Government cannot do one thing. It cannot get the whip out and go round the suburbs saying to the consumers of Australia: ‘You will have to go down to the local GMH dealer and buy a Kingswood, otherwise our plan will not work. We do not care how much you are earning, what sort of car you like or how large is your family. Unless you buy the normal car that is produced in Australia and pay the amount it is now costing to produce it all our plans will be upset’. The Government may write new rules for the IAC, as happened on the last occasion when the Government said: ‘Tell us how to run a car plant with 85 per cent Australian content. Give the imports 20 per cent of the market up to a total of 94,000 units’. The IAC said: ‘It is quite simple. This is how you do it. But that is not our recommendation ‘:

I invite honourable members to look at that IAC report to see whether they can find the word ‘recommendation’ in it. The Government laid down the guidelines, as the Government will do in future. The honourable member for Moore was wrong. The recommendations of the IAC in future will be made in the light of Government policy. If the Government’s policy is to close the market completely in Australia the IAC reports will be in line with Government policy. But that will not change the situation. It will not assist the situation. There may be those who would argue that the over-protection that we have been charged with haying in Australia over the past few years has put people out of work today and that the situation has arisen in a short period of time with little notice being given about the industries that are being closed down. As I have said, to make matters worse, industries in Australia are looking gleefully at the attractive offers that are being made to them by the industrial zones of Asia to set up industries there.

It is foolhardy to believe that by some manipulation of legislation- amendment of the Industries Assistance Commission Act- we are going to, have a healthier economy or that in some way by amending the Industries Assistance Commission Act we will be able to protect all the jobs that were promised during the last election campaign would be protected. That proposition is nonsense and honourable members opposite know that it is nonsense. They rant and rave about how they belong to parties that stand for the employee and how they are trying to protect the employee. If they wanted to protect the employee domestically they would not have such a thing as an investment allowance. They would eradicate completely the pay-roll tax, a policy about which we came in for so much criticism. They would look at the things in Australia that militate against employing people. They should do away with them before they start talking this nonsense about amending the Industries Assistance Commission Act in the hope that they will protect all the jobs in Australia.

I think it is fair enough to say that we have tried some of these things. We in this Parliament just do not seem to be sophisticated enough to be able to look at the long term problems of Australia and then have sufficient courage to say what ought to be done. Instead of being glib and saying that we have to restructure without really knowing what it means, why does the Parliament not say that we ought to be looking at these questions of restructuring because the most important thing to the Parliament is the security of the employee and the way in which we are able to attract investment, both locally and overseas. But we do not do that. We have this absolute nonsense, this charade of amending the Act in the hope that all the jobs will be saved. I have news for the 445,000 people who are out of work. This legislation will not change their position in life one iota and the hammer hangs over the heads of everybody who now works in manufacturing industry in Australia.

Mr SHORT:
Ballarat

– It is incredible how many reasons honourable gentlemen opposite can find for being decimated at the last election. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) is now using spokesmen for the clothing, footwear and textile industries as a reason. It is high time the Opposition woke up to the fact that the Australian Labor Party lost in 1977, as it did in 1975, because of its incompetence, dubious honesty and dereliction of duty and the rampant socialism that marked its period of office between 1973 and 1975. When will it all end? When will the Labor Party wake up and put its own house in order?

The Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill and the consequential Customs Tariff Amendment Bill are of considerable importance to all sections of the Australian economy. I shall confine my remarks tonight primarily to the main Bill, that is, the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill. As the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) said in his second reading speech, this Bill was presented to the last Parliament but the dissolution of that Parliament prevented its being considered then. It has therefore been reintroduced. The Bill was subjected to intensive consideration by all members of the Government parties. I think it is fair to say that it has the widest support, despite the fact that within our parties, just as is the case within the Labor Party, there is a wide divergence of view between individual members in their general philosophy towards the whole question of protection in Australia.

The main objective of the Bill is to permit the IAC and the Temporary Assistance Authority to respond fully to the Government’s policy on industry and to ensure that efficient emergency procedures to safeguard industries exist. I believe that such an objective is entirely reasonable and necessary provided- it is a major proviso- that the independence of the IAC is fully maintained and in no way compromised. That proviso is met completely in this Bill. The IAC remains independent in its advisory role. It is important to stress that the IAC’s role is advisory and advisory only. There seems to be an impression amongst some industries and industry spokesmen that the IAC is actually the body which makes decisions as to the level of assistance to be provided to local industry. That, of course, is not so, nor has it ever been the case. It is the government of the day and the government alone which makes the decisions. But it is of critical importance that the advice coming to government on these matters must be independent, impartial and objective. As I have said, the Bill ensures that this will continue to be the case. For that reason I cannot comprehend the second part of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), which suggests that the Government’s action in this Bill is threatening the basic independence of the Industries Assistance Commission. I cannot see that for one moment. I think it has been made clear by the Minister, by the content of the Bill and by the consideration that has been given to it that it is simply not the case.

The Bill provides that the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority shall in their work have regard to the Government’s desire to achieve sustained growth through balanced development of industries with a view to providing increased opportunities for employment and investment. That too is a very important provision and I will turn to it later in my remarks. I cannot emphasise enough that it is a major commitment of the Government to have a sound and viable manufacturing sector in this country. From time to time we hear manufacturing industry spokesmen who do not seem to recognise this, but the Government has repeatedly made this clear and I believe that the whole thrust of the White Paper on the Manufacturing Industry was in this direction.

The Bill also makes it clear that it is the Government’s objective that any measures to achieve change in the structure of industry are taken only after due regard has been given to the capacity of the economy to sustain those changes and to absorb members of the work force displaced by those changes. In other words, the Government is concerned about the rate of change in the structure of industry. Change is inevitable. Change is inexorable. It is simply not possible deliberately to resist change if we are to have a prosperous economy and a high standard of living for all Australians. But change must occur at a rate which is manageable and at a rate which does not cause major dislocation to the economic and social structure of our society. Industries are constantly having to cope with and adjust to changes imposed on them for many reasons, probably the most important of which are changing demand and changing technology. But it makes little sense to force change at such a pace as to cause major dislocation. This is very important in the case of existing investment in particular industries.

Potential new investment is highly volatile and highly mobile but frequently existing investment is not mobile other than over a period of time. Existing plant and equipment normally will have only limited alternative use. Particularly if the industry is in a non-metropolitan area, the displaced labour force will have difficulty in easily finding alternative employment in the area. If people are forced to leave the area at short notice to find new work, and especially if they have to go to a metropolitan area for employment, important and very considerable economic and just as important social costs will be incurred. Therefore, I am very strongly of the view that tariff changes should occur gradually. If the Government takes a decision that an industry is a too-high cost an industry and should not continue to be protected then the reduction in protection should be phased in over a period sufficiently long to permit the resources in the industry to move to other industries with the minimum of economic and social disruption. If such an approach is not followed, the costs resulting from the tariff reduction may very well outweigh the benefits. As with most things in life, economic and other things, the rate of change rather than change itself is the most critical factor influencing the ability of the individual or the institution to cope with and adjust to the change without too severe debilitating effects.

The Bill also requires the Commission to report on the level of assistance required to ensure that activity and employment in an industry are sustained. Whilst the thought behind this provision is unexceptionable, I have some doubts as to how it can be applied in practice. Many factors determine the level of output and employment in any industry, even one which is highly protected. The overall level of economic activity in the community is probably the most important factor. For industries which export a proportion of their output, activity and competition in overseas markets can also be significant determinants. The rate of growth of wage and raw material cost are other considerations. So too in this world of floating exchange rates is the movement in the value of the Australian dollar relative to other currencies. All these factors can and do change over time, and often quite quickly. Therefore the IAC faces a Herculean task or perhaps a Houdini-like task in meeting this requirement of the Bill. I have no objection to the provision but I think it would be unfortunate if industry were left with the impression that either the Commission or the Government had the prescience to be able to pick a rate of tariff which ensured the maintenance of existing output and employment levels. It is more than likely that outside factors will make this impossible of achievement and that the result will be either higher or lower output and employment than that predicted.

I am very pleased to see that the Bill will give the Government the same flexibility in dealing with recommendations of the TAA as applies in respect to recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission. As I understand it, up until now the Government has not been permitted to decide on a higher rate of temporary assistance than that recommended by the Temporary Assistance Authority, whereas there was not the same restriction on the Government in relation to its decisions based on IAC recommendations. I could never see any logical reason for this distinction and I am glad that the Bill removes the apparent anomaly. There are other provisions which are also sensible; for example, the extension from the present 30 days to 45 days in the time limit put on the TAA in which to report on matters referred to it. Also sensible, I believe, is the provision that temporary assistance granted following a TAA report will not continue for a period of more than 12 months without review by either the TAA or the Commission, and that temporary assistance will not be provided beyond a second year unless a report on the industry concerned has been received from the IAC.

There are two aspects of the question of time limits which are not contained in the Bill but which cause me some concern. The first is the fact that no time limit is placed on the IAC in which to report following receipt of a reference. I have had several experiences within my own electorate of companies with references before the IAC having to wait up to four years from the date of the reference before obtaining a final decision. I believe that this is a very bad state of affairs which should not be permitted to continue. This situation is less likely to occur nowadays because many references now have a time limit written into them. But there is no statutory provision. I have discussed this matter with the

Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who is at the table, and I think that he agrees with me. He has pointed out certain practical difficulties in writing a time limit into the Industries Assistance Commission Act, and I accept that. However, I would like to receive an assurance from the Minister, perhaps when he is summing up at the end of this debate, that time limits will be written into all future references to the IAC unless extraordinary circumstances in individual cases dictate that this would not be prudent.

In my personal view, no IAC inquiry should be permitted to take more than 12 months from date of reference to date of receipt by government. In saying that, my main aim is to ensure that an industry knows, once it has a reference, how long it will take and how long the indusry must expect to wait before there is a report by the IAC on the reference. The second timing factorI accept also that this could not be covered in the Bill- relates to the time it takes the Government to reach and announce decisions following receipt of IAC or TAA reports. Again, several companies in my electorate have had unfortunate experiences in this respect. I recognise that there are various interdepartmental procedures which need to be followed and which take time, and that on occasions Cabinet may seek further information on reports and submissions referred to it, which again delays final decision taking. My only plea to the Government is that once reports are received from the IAC or the TAA it does all that is reasonably practicable to ensure that decisions are made and announced as soon as possible. Delays have very unsettling effects on business confidence and investment decisions.

Perhaps the most important economic policy aspect of the Bill is the clear recognition by the Government of the interdependence of shortterm and long-term assistance issues. I commend the following statement made by the Minister in his second reading speech:

Temporary assistance will not, therefore, be provided in such a way that it effectively removes the need for industries to adapt to changing circumstances; rather it will be provided so as to allow industries to take appropriate action to adapt to such changes. These amendments will ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between long-term and short-term assistance.

The area of tariff policy is one of the most important areas with which any government has to deal. It is also one of the most difficult and politically sensitive areas. To my knowledge it is only in relatively recent years that this House has engaged in substantive debate of the subject. The fact that tariff policy has been elevated to the debate level owes much, I believe, to the persistence of the former honourable member for Wakefield, Mr Bert Kelly, and I take this opportunity to place on record the debt that this Parliament and the nation owes to Bert Kelly. I am pleased also to observe that for a variety of reasons, including, I hope, the increased attention being given in debate in this House to the question of tariffs, other outside organisations and bodies also are making an increasing contribution to the debate. I am very pleased, for example, to note the existence and the content of the Australian Development Assistance Agency study entitled ‘Protection in Perspective’. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with that study in whole or in part I think it is a significant contribution to the debate on tariffs. I welcome its existence and I hope it receives wide coverage. I also welcome the contributions that have been made on an increasingly objective and analytical basis by rural and other organisations throughout the country.

I represent an electorate which has an important manufacturing sector, an important rural sector and an important tertiary sector. I have watched with concern the growth of expression in Australia that what is good for the manufacturing sector is bad for the rural sector, and conversely. Such views ignore the inter-relationships between different sectors of the economy. They also ignore the simple economics of development and the fact that much of the community is not directly part either of the rural sector or the manufacturing sector. Further, and this is a point which seems rarely to be raised in the debate on tariffs, even by the manufacturing sector itself, a significant number of secondary industries either face no competition from imports or export their products as well as selling them on the home market. Equally, some rural industries sell the majority of their output on the domestic market whilst for others the export market is by far the more important market.

Furthermore, there is the simple fact that if we as a nation are to develop our full potential and to generate the goods and services needed to accommodate the community’s rising and diversified material and other aspirations, we must utilise our resources in the most efficient manner compatible with our other policy objectives. Efficient resource usage is quite fundamental to the achievement of our overall objectives. There is no doubt in my mind that this cannot be achieved without the healthy development of all sectors, primary, secondary and tertiary. It makes as little sense to say that we can do without a viable rural sector or healthy secondary industries as it would to say that we do not need schools or hospitals. That being said, however, it must be recognised also that at the end of the day all industries in all sectors compete with each other for resources. In many respects the most important competition for resources is between industries within the manufacturing sector. What we must ensure is that those industries which can use resources in the most economical way are not deprived of those resources because they are, for whatever reason, going into less economical usage industries.

The question of the appropriate level of the tariff cannot, therefore, be simplified into arguing the case for the rural sector versus the manufacturing sector versus the mining sector and so on. Rather, the debate should be arguing the case for policies to achieve the greatest economy and efficiency within each sector, while recognising the problems that high tariffs pose for those areas of the economy that either require no protection at all or little protection. There is little or no dispute amongst economists, politicians or businessmen from whatever sector of productive activity they may come that tariffs increase the cost structure of the nation, nor is there any real dispute that tariffs tend to distort the market, particularly when, as in the case of Australia, there is a wide range in the level of tariffs applying to different industries. This fact is in itself an important argument for the proposition that the lower the level of tariffs less imperfect is.the market system and, therefore, the better economic use is made of available resources.

There are many other things that one could say in a debate like this and many other issues that must be covered. There is the question of the relationship between tariffs and the exchange rate; the question of tariff compensation for rural, mining and manufacturing industries which now bear the burden of the costs imposed by tariffs; the relationship between tariff policy and wages policy, between tariffs and employment opportunities and the like. It is for this reason that I hope the House will have further opportunities to debate these subjects. In the meantime I reiterate my support for the two Bills and reject the amendment moved by the Opposition. So far as the first part of that amendment is concerned, it seems to me that it will do nothing other than to lead us down the road to socialism.

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The House has debated tariff policy over a considerable period and I think that most honourable members will regret the fact that on this occasion the former honourable member for Wakefield, Mr Bert Kelly, is not here to take the pan of the Industries Assistance Commission. I suppose there will be other members who, to some degree, will support the decisions of the IAC but the former honourable member for Wakefield was a very strong advocate of free trade policies. I do not think that I could be regarded, over a period of time, as being a very strong supporter of IAC recommendations. In fact, I wonder at times whether its recommendations have any relevance at all for the Australian scene. Recommendations such as those in the car industry report of 1973, if implemented, would have the effect in many instances of removing large numbers of industrial workers from the Australian work force. That particular report suggested that the level of assistance to the car industry should be a 25 per cent tariff. I think most honourable members would be aware that there would be no car industry in Australia now if that report had been adopted. The Government of the day adopted a different plan, not necessarily a satisfactory solution, but a compromise between what people would like to do and what the community can afford to have.

This Bill changes fairly radically the powers of the IAC. One of the changes which I am not sure is an advance is to give the Minister the ability to direct the IAC on priorities relating to its reports. The previous legislation set down certain guidelines on which the IAC was required to make reports and I think those guidelines were often ignored or overlooked. Nevertheless, the guidelines were there. At least one knew previously that the reports were the result of an inquiry. In future we will not necessarily know whether the recommendations are the result of an inquiry or are, in fact, pre-determined by the guidelines set down by the Government. If the Government really wishes to make policy without the advice of the IAC, it should accept the political consequences and not use another body in order to get a mirror reflection of its original requirements. That could happen under this particular piece of legislation.

I believe in protection. I believe that Australian industry can not survive without levels of protection in certain areas- not all areas, but certain areas. I do not agree with the proposition which is often put by proponents of low tariffs and proponents of open trade that under the circumstances which exist in the trading world, we can, without penalty, remove protection from Australian industry and necessarily have the total economy benefit.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– The unprotected parts of Australia are finding the most difficulty in surviving at the moment.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I am not in a position to comment on that. But I do say that one factor which I do not see referred to very often by those who talk about free trade, is the levels of subsidy and assistance which interfere with equality of trade opportunity on behalf of importers. One European country in the textile industry for some considerable time has met as a subsidy to exporters the total cost of any protection or penalties involved in getting goods into Australia. Other countries which make a lot of noise about access to Australian markets are in fact providing tax concessions, rent concessions and fixed wage conditions well below the proper economic wage level of the country concerned. This alters the competitive nature of Australian industry to its detriment. There is no question at all that Australia can import shoes, clothing, textiles and motor cars at a price lower than that which is charged on the market at the moment. There is also no question at all, although many leading economists would have us believe otherwise, that to do so we would have to remove work opportunities from approximately 15 per cent of the work force.

Manufacturing industry at the moment represents between 20 per cent and 22 per cent of the work force in Australia. I think it is nearer to 20 per cent than 22 per cent. The proportion is declining. But the present Government’s policies, rightly or wrongly, are not placing very great restrictions on growth in the nonmanufacturing work force. There is certainly little evidence that the minerals industry, the uranium industry or agriculture will absorb any substantial proportions of the work force in the future. So, if we continue to have a declining work force in manufacturing industry, no replacement employment opportunities will be created. The amendment moved by the Opposition points out the need for long term planning. In the short term we may be able to prop up industries without much effort if we are totally prepared or if we are to a substantial extent prepared to use quotas. I make this point about quotas: We can certainly impose quotas to exclude imports from the Australian market place, thus guaranteeing that X quantity of goods or X number of motor cars will be made and sold in Australia at whatever price and whatever levels of efficiency as may exist. We can certainly do that for a time, but I doubt whether we can do that for an unlimited time.

There are penalties involved in not looking at the longer term future of manufacturing industry. A White Paper on Manufacturing Industry was presented in the last Parliament. To my knowledge, that is as far as the matter has gone. There is certainly no real infrastructure available for industry to be assisted, if necessary, to change its methods of operation and for new industries to evolve. This Bill does not make a great deal of difference. Government pronouncements by some Ministers do not help. There is a clash of interest in the Australian community. The Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council has published what it says is substantive evidence that because of tariffs each farmer in Australia contributes $11,000 a year to revenue. I would obviously challenge the accuracy of that figure; nevertheless, the claim has been made. There is no doubt that if we had no manufacturing industry and imports were able to replace the goods previously made in Australia, there would be some reflection in the levels of the value of Australian currency to the benefit of export industries. I am almost certain that those who would benefit from that situation would not receive any financial benefits in the long run because the great bulk of our population would have to be supported by revenue from income tax. Those who gained wealth by that sort of situation would in the end pay the income tax in order to support the people who were no longer creating income. We cannot have it both ways. Half the population cannot be put out of work while the other half benefits. It just does not happen that way.

The Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), has said on at least one occasion- I think he has done so on a number of occasionsthat he does not support high protection policies and the the present protection levels are likely to remain only while the economy is in a downward trend or a trough. I think the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and other Ministers have taken a different point of view. Those who are likely to invest in modernising plant, in replacing obsolete machinery or in training people to take over the managerial side of businesses which need protection, which need confidence in order to continue, will note that sort of statement. No matter what the Government says, while that sort of threat is present investment in that area will not take place.

I think we in this Parliament must look at realities wherever possible. I do not like the situation which this Bill brings about whereby a political decision can be manipulated so that it appears to be the decision of an independent body- and that is what appears to be in the Bill. I think that on occasions, an objective examination of an industry does that industry good, even if the only result is that the industry has to look at itself in order to prepare a selfjustification. The situation is very much like confession: It has a purifying effect. But I do not think that the Industries Assistance Commission has had a confidence building effect because its recommendations seem to have rarely taken into account the submissions which have been made to it. Certainly it does not appear to have taken into account the consequences of its actions. I remember that in its initial report on the motor vehicle industry the Industries Assistance Commission indicated that there would be increasing employment in the industry rather than a reduction in employment if its proposals were adopted.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It was wrong in that, too.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I suggest that if the IAC’s report had been adopted there would have been an increase in unemployment. There would have been no employment at all in South Australia and we would be lucky if any car firm were doing anything more than assembling in Australia. In fact I doubt whether there would have been any assembling being done in Australia. People who do not have to accept the consequences of their actions are able to make very objective judgments. I would like to suggest that we could open up trade to the whole world and aid other people. I do not believe we are in a position to do so. We are more open in our trade than most Western countries. We are certainly more open than our major trading partners. We cannot get goods into Japan with a shoe horn. Anyone who thinks he can export manufactured goods to that country ought to forget about it. There are other countries in our region which are seeking an opening up of trade, which have a very high economic level of activity and which could not, under any circumstances, be designated as underprivileged.

I think the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short) who preceded me in this debate would agree with me when I say that- and this is particularly so in my electorate- if protection is removed from industry, be it the textile industry, the motor vehicle industry or the farm implements making industy, and an open market situation were to occur, there would be a permanent unemployment level of 20 per cent. There are no alternative areas to move into. I have yet to hear one of the economists or academics who write theses about moving labour into more efficient areas of production say what are those areas of production. If they exist and if they are economically and financially viable, are Australian or foreign businessmen who invest in this country so stupid as not to be already active in these fields?

There is not much profit and not much joy for anyone who invests in the textile industry. It is of no use investing in the motor vehicle industry. It might be a good thing not to have invested in two motor vehicle companies this year, although anyone who has invested in the motor vehicle industry over a longer period would have done very well. No one in his right mind would invest in the textile industry in Australia under the circumstances which prevail at the moment. There is no guaranteed future in that industry. There is no guaranteed future in the footwear industry, although it is likely that it is the most protected industry, possibly the most over protected industry in existence. But if the level of protection is changed the trading balance will be altered to the extent where that industry just cannot exist any longer. Those people who still have jobs, although they feel that those jobs are unsatisfactory, are a damned sight better off than those who have no job at all. Those jobs are supporting Australians.

I am most likely talking like a Philistine, but outside the door of my electorate office I can see the kids who go to the local office of the Commonwealth Employment Service. I see them there daily. At the beginning it is a bit of a thing for them. After three months they are demoralised. After six months they are almost cot cases. After 12 months they can no longer be regarded as members of our society; hope has gone. Some people can survive it; others cannot. It is a most demoralising experience, especially for those people who live in an area in which work opportunities are slim. These people are sent to an employer week after week for the purpose of having a piece of paper signed in order to justify the payment to them of the unemployment benefit.

I illustrate my point by referring to a gentleman I interviewed who for two years has been trying to get himself a job. The payment of unemployment benefit to him was chopped off because it was said that he was not trying. He had sustained a back injury. At no stage during the whole of that period was the CES able to refer him to one job. What hope does such a person have for the future? He is a relatively young man. That is the son of situation we will create if we open up our markets and be friends with everyone. The Common Market will not open its doors; Japan will not do it. The paragons of virtue in the United States have extraordinarly high levels of protection for people who constantly ask others to lower their barriers. We cannot even get Australian wool into the United States without a bounty of 25c in the lb. being imposed on it- and the United States is short of wool.

I think the Government is answerable on a number of counts. One of them is that, despite a lot of talk and despite a lot of promises, it has yet really to face up to and to tackle the problem of what will happen to our manufacturing industries if something more than sustenance is not forthcoming. Sustenance is all we are about at the moment. We cannot protect with tariffs because we cannot make them high enough to give protection. The imposition of quotas is a form of protection, but some encouragement has to be given to industry to modernise, to keep up. I have already said that anyone who invested in some sections of industry at the moment would be absolutely mad. But that investment has to take place.

An equally important aspect of this matter is that young people entering into the education system have to be provided with confidence to train for executive and managerial positions in secondary and manufacturing industries. That is a long term investment by any student, by any person, in his future. Such people have to realise that there is a future at the end of the line. Too many people who trained for jobs which they thought would exist now are walking into a wilderness. Manufacturing industry has not been popular in the past as an academic training area. It is popular at the moment because not many opportunities are available elsewhere. People are embarking on business study courses in very large numbers, but they are doing so because they cannot see anything else that they can do. If we are to get the best out of our industry we have to get the best of the available talent going into all levels of our industry.

We are not training tradesmen in Australia in the numbers that are required. The Government is very seriously at fault in that regard. We are not giving encouragement to people to enter those areas where they are needed most, such as in the area of managerial skills. That would allow our industries to become more competitive. Many Australian industries have been taken over by foreign capital and suddenly blossomed out into great success. That has not occurred because Australians cannot achieve the same result; it has occurred because of a lack of long term confidence. Honourable members opposite can blame it on whatever they wish. I suggest that the Government has a responsibility to set long term guidelines and to introduce policies which will enable long term planning to take place. That would enable our industries to become competitive and would enable to take place the sort of investment which is required to create the employment which is so necessary.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Speaking in support of the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill gives me an opportunity to present some of the more pertinent facts in relation to the problems which are being faced by the Australian manufacturing industries in a world-wide scene. Australia’s manufacturing industries are competing against the products of foreign industries on very unfair terms, both in Australia and abroad. That competition falls into three broad categories. Firstly, there is competition from very cheap labour countries where foreign investment in export industries is being assisted and subsidised by the host governments of those countries.

Secondly, there is competition from communist-controlled nations where cheap labour and production costs are augmented by the fact that the manufacturing plants in those countries are state owned and do not necessarily have to show a profit, there being no shareholders except the state. Frequently the state exports products from those factories at cost or even below cost in order to gain hard currency exchange. Thus the price of export goods from these competition sources often is an artificially low ‘political’ price. The third form of competition is from the subsidised industries of Western Europe and North America. The governments of those countries provide interest free loans, grants to employers to offset wage costs, tax concessions, special allowances for depreciation and other help, admitted or hidden, to assist their industries to compete world-wide against the products of the first two categories I have mentioned.

These highly organised forms of international competition would wipe out any Australian manufacturing industry on the home market if government protection were not provided. Already many Australian industries have been greatly reduced in size and skills through market disruption in Australia caused by imports from such subsidised sources. The situation is worsened because Australia’s manufacturing industries are not receiving sufficient assistance from the Government to protect them on export markets. In fact, many of our companies have lost the export markets they once owned because they are running into unfair trade as distinct from free trade conditions. There is an urgent need to assist Australian manufacturing industries to export by increasing government aid to match international industrial assistance.

Why is that necessary? It is necessary, firstly, to strengthen the base of” Australia’s export earnings beyond unprocessed mineral exports and rural products, thus giving greater stability to the Australian economy. Secondly, it is necessary in order to increase markets for Australia’s manufactured goods beyond the small Australian home market, thus achieving increased private investment in manufacturing industries, the development of existing and new industries with their accompanying new skills and technologies, increased employment, and large production runs resulting in greater economies of scale and lower production costs, which would eventually benefit Australian consumers as well as export competitiveness. Thirdly, it is necessary to give greater depth to Australia’s manufacturing industries, enabling them to withstand market fluctuations at home and to maintain employment, investment and cash flow. Fourthly, it is necessary to enable Australian manufacturing industries to improve their competitiveness on the home market. Fifthly, it will enable Australian manufacturing industries to compete on world markets against the foreign industries producing like products which are heavily promoted in assistance both directly and indirectly by foreign governments. Australia’s degree of government assistance to its manufacturing industries for exports is negligible compared with the norm of assistance elsewhere in the world.

How can the Australian Government assist manufacturing industry? Firstly, there should be taxation concessions to export industries, direct government assistance to help develop export markets, government grants, and low interest loans for the establishment and development of such industries. Secondly, joint governmentindustry surveys should be undertaken of the export potential of Australian industries including available markets and the margin of price disability against international competitors. Follow-up investigations on a joint basis should be made to discover what further action needs to be taken. Thirdly, threshold costs should be set in opening up and continuing with a new foreign market from the initial point of inertia in demand for Australian products, to be met jointly by the Australian Government and those Australian companies interested in forming an Australian industry task force designed to capture a share of the foreign market. This form of government assistance should continue until such time as the initial promotion in the foreign country is completed.

I might mention here that the New Zealand Government provides to its exporting industries an export manufacturing investment allowance of 20 per cent in the first year, together with the normal depreciation. New Zealand development grants for new markets reduce the after-tax to 19.5c per dollar spent. A New Zealand tax deduction of 25 per cent of the value of increased exports is allowed. In addition, exports to a new market, which include exports of new products to old markets, qualify for two years for an additional 15 per cent reduction. An assumption by the Industries Assistance Commission has been evident in most of its reports on industries in recent years. That assumption is that market forces, government action or human initiative in some form will provide replacement industries for re-employment and re-investment in the wake of the reduction or extinction of existing industries through lower protection against unfair import competition. The folly of this assumption is that it ignores the fact that market forces created existing industries. Thus if existing market shares are not retained either at home or abroad, new markets must be found for other products before new industries are created to manufacture them.

The market always comes first. Obviously it is dangerous nonsense to attempt to establish new industries to manufacture products in advance of knowing if their products can be sold for a reasonable return on investment or can withstand subsidised foreign competition. Not enough is being done by the Australian Govern- — .—– .—- - J—_ i - *____ u r«, ment to encourage aim assist market research for industries in Australia and overseas as a prelude to redirecting investment in manufacturing into more desirable endeavours. This surely must become the first priority in any effort to restructure Australian manufacturing industry. We should take care to retain the industries we had before the restructuring.

Experience in Australia and in other countries has already amply demonstrated that market shares for existing industries sometimes must be maintained by a government for particular reasons of national importance, even at the cost of subsidising production or employment. Firstly, this would prevent prolonged or permanent unemployment among workers living in regions where there is not a sufficiently wide range of job opportunities for their type of employment, aptitudes or skills. Secondly, in some provincial areas of Australia that element of the population which is not employed in rural industries or in local commerce faces permanent or prolonged unemployment if industrial work or light industrial work is not provided and maintained in the district. The only alternative for such people is to leave the district to seek such employment elsewhere. In the past this has been partly responsible for the long established drift of population from rural districts of Australia to the cities, particularly among young men and women who after leaving school cannot find employment in their home districts suitable to their aptitudes. A survey on the importance of the textile and apparel industries in the Victorian regional centre of Wangaratta has been conducted.

The flexibility of labour is discussed elsewhere in my speech. I have concluded that many families cannot or will not move their homes from a district in which they have been long established to accept or to seek jobs in the same industry or in new industries distantly removed. However, the drift of population from Australia’s rural districts to the cities more often than not has featured young single people whose mobility is greater than that of married people and those who have acquired homes. It is also true that many country people who cannot find suitable work in their home districts prefer to remain home permanently unemployed than to leave to take their chances in the cities. This applies particularly to women. It is significant that the governments of Great Britain and West Germany are at present subsidising employment on the wages basis in depressed provinces in those countries to maintain employment in the apparel and textile industries.

Thirdly, it is important for employment opportunities to be maintained for migrants with language problems, particularly for women migrants, in industrial and light industrial work where this is not a handicap. The apparel and textile industries, for example, have a record of achievement in providing such employment since the Second World War. Fourthly, the division of vocational aptitudes in the work force is not greatly different from country to country. Not everyone can work in a bank, an office or even a shop. A considerable percentage of the population of every nation attains the dignity of employment through the value of their skills related to manual dexterity. This applies to both male and female employment.

It is easy for intellectual workers to assume wrongly that factory work is boring or unjust because they themselves would not like to be doing it. This is in effect intellectual snobbery. Such people sometimes assert that industrial and light industrial employment is ‘dirty work’. They fail to recognise that industrial or light industrial work is essential to some people and far more preferable to being unemployed. It is sometimes evident that some people favour the exporting of so-called ‘dirty work’, claiming that jobs in manufacturing industry should not be done by Australians but could be done by people in other countries who charge less for it, although this is not necessarily true in the context of the various national economic scales. There is an element of racial exploitation in this thinking. For instance, ‘We can get others to do our dirty work for us because they charge less’. There may also be an assumption of racial superiority, that is, that Australians are too good for light industrial and industrial ‘dirty work’ but others do not mind doing it.

In Australia a strange cargo cult mentality persists. It believes that this country is entitled to a continuation of high wages, high employment and a high standard of living but also is entitled to cheap consumer goods. It is argued that it is an injustice for the Australian public to pay high prices for the products of its own labour, although this labour itself is highly priced. It is advocated that cheap imported consumer goods can replace the highly priced Australian consumer goods and that the public will benefit by this substitution. The cheap foreign consumer goods produced by people less fortunate than ourselves will be offered to the Australian public by the benevolent Australian retailers at bargain prices to bring down inflation. With our high wage structure and high production costs, and the subsidised foreign competition on our home market, almost any Australian manufactured product can be undersold or put out of business. The importer/ retailer can make high profit mark-ups on imported products, undersell the Australian made product by a small margin, and put the Australian made product out of business by giving preference in orders to foreign made products. He can do all of this without much public benefit in price gain.

There is insufficient public recognition of the essential need to support Australian industries by paying higher prices for the products of such industries as an essential part of the cost of high Australian wages, high employment and a high standard of living. A Commonwealth Government committee is currently investigating the possibility of a ‘Buy Australian Made’ campaign for this reason. It should be noted that the American garment workers union is actively promoting American made garments. In Australia one industry group, the Australian Confederation of Apparel Manufacturers, has been engaged in a similar national promotion for the past two years at a total cost to the industry of some $150,000. I think that if honourable members examine some of the manufactured goods which are sold here they can tell the Australian made promotional item which is identified by a big ‘A’, meaning it is Australian made. Australian consumers, wage earners and employers, including manufacturers and retailers, cannot be blamed for their self interest in any consideration of the share of Australian markets going to locally made products or cheap subsidised imports. The protection of markets for Australian industries is government business. Investors of capital in manufacturing require a reasonable return of profit on their investment and will always try to put their money where this is obtainable.

I believe very seriously that the problems that we have been facing in this country for some time, particularly with our balance of payments, will continue as long as we continue to have a high degree of imports from overseas sources. When we had an import replacement policy which worked effectively for more than 25 years we did not have a balance of payments problem. I believe that we must look seriously at an export incentive scheme such as I have mentioned. We could take one or two of the relevant points of the scheme which is operating in New Zealand. One could spend a lot of time on this matter, but the time allocated does not permit me to explain what other assistance is rendered by other Western nations, including those in the European Economic Community and the United States of America.

In 1978 it is important that we take account of some of the attitudes of the Opposition, particularly those expressed in the last election campaign. Not one of the Opposition spokesmen, including the Leader at the time, was prepared to come forward and make a definite statement to the effect that he would support Australian industry and would guarantee that those Australian industries which are efficient, can manufacture at a sensible price and need the assurance of government would continue to be in business. These people unfortunately lost a great deal of support. I am pleased to say that what we are proposing in these two Bills will mean a greater degree of assistance to a number of Australians. I believe that in the long and short term we will see an increase in employment in these industries. We will reduce the cost of the manufactured items because of long production runs. People will be employed instead of being unemployed. I support the two Bills. I will not use my full allocation of time in order to give the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles) an opportunity to say a few words tonight.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– These Bills raise matters of great importance to this Parliament. I want to deal with what seems to me to be a set of underlying presumptions not merely in this Parliament but in the Australian community as a whole. They straddle all political parties in terms of our attitudes towards manufacturing industry. A view has been expressed in this House during the Address-in-Reply debate that really the economic future of Australia lies with our mineral developments; that is to say, that we will become some kind of great quarry. The wealth that can be generated by the vast mineral resources of our nation will provide the sort of economic wherewithal which will mean that our traditional reliance either on primary production or upon manufacturing industry will have to be less intense.

In that view there seems also to be some kind of trade-off that in concentrating our economic efforts in that direction manufacturing industry can play a secondary part in the development of our mineral resources. A third view was expressed from this side of the House. It was said that some kind of moral obligation is placed upon the people of Australia and upon Australian manufacturing industry to be prepared to suffer degrees of economic sacrafice in order that we can be the repository of cheap goods from manufacturing industries in South East Asia because while that may not be good for us, it ultimately means that the results of our sacrifice will be a raising of living standards in those parts of South East Asia which undoubtedly, we would all agree, need some real increase in their living standards. When one looks at this whole argument it seems that it overlooks the way in which manufacturing industry in Australia has developed over the years in what I would describe as the regional nature of manufacturing industry. Let me develop each of those points.

The development of our mineral resources will provide areas of inflow of funds from overseas which will make Australia economically viable. I do not think that anyone can disagree with that. I say to this House- we all have to look at thisthat the nature of mineral development involves a high degree of technology and in many areas it is not particularly a labour intensive industry. If we as a parliament and as a nation are prepared to say that we will chase a quick dollar and let our manufacturing industry slide in order to pursue the quick dollar, we will in my view be selling an important aspect of our heritage. Apart from that fact this would produce a tremendous economic imbalance in Australian society.

I would also like to deal with the view that there is a moral obligation upon us as a nation to assist with the underdeveloped nations of South East Asia and be a repository for their manufactured goods. Let me be quite blunt; I think we have to be blunt about these things. I think it is perfectly proper for us to say to the nations of South East Asia that at this time in our economic development we have tremendous problems in employment and in finding employment opportunities for our young people and that as a nation, as a government and as a parliament we have a duty to our own people. I also think a lot of emotional nonsense is involved in this issue.

I commend to honourable members a research document entitled ‘Australian Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia: A Case Study’. It is a Transnational Corporations research project. It is basically a thesis which looks at the involvement of Australian companies in Indonesia. It is a case study of the effects of that involvement and what it means, not so much for Australia but for the companies involved- they are in Indonesia for investment opportunities. More importantly it shows what is involved for the future of Indonesia. As one who has spent not a inconsiderable period of his life arguing for better living standards for Australian workers, let me quote some sentences from this research finding. The document talks about standards that apply in Indonesia in regard to the Australian companies and in joint ventures in which Australian companies are involved. Page 69 states:

Payment of penalty rates was varied, but information on this subject was not complete. Five companies paid overtime, two did not; three paid penalty rates, the rest did not. Only five companies worked shifts; four worked three eighthour shifts and one two twelve-hour shifts, the latter without payment of penalty rates. Whilst some companies did pay penalty rates for shift work, they indicated it was of no real consequence to the overall structure of the wage bill since there was no stipulated minimum wage from which to calculate over award payments. Employers simply took a very low base wage on to which they added their estimation of suitable penalty rates. Casual workers and day labourers employed at 50c per day on average received no overtime payments or other penalty rates. But those employed on a monthly basis received a guaranteed monthly wage often supplemented with a number of side benefits.

Page 138 of the document outlines some conclusions reached in terms of the input into Indonesia of some of these ventures. It states:

In sum, it must be concluded that direct investments by Australian firms in Indonesia’s manufacturing sector result in or augment, the generation of serious economic problems. It operates, as did former colonial investments, as an enclave. It is characterised by sophisticated, capital-intensive technology, limited employment generation, the production of commodities unsuitable for consumption by the mass of the people. It does not have the capacity to assist, by the generation of spread effects, the development of a mature and diversified industrial sector within the Indonesian economy. What industrialisation does occur there will be that which is complementary to the needs of the capitalist nations, rather than that which can begin to fulfil the needs of the mass of the Indonesian people.

I commend those arguments to those woolly minded exponents of the view that we in Australia, by being prepared to sacrifice industries like the rubber industry, the textile industry and the boot trades industry, are making some sort of moral effort to help the development of under-developed nations like Indonesia. Indeed, the conclusion reached in this document indicates that the standard of living of those people who are actually involved in those joint ventures are not substantially improved. The document goes further to state that the actual involvement complicates the proper, balanced economic development of those nations. It does very little to improve them. I do not say that that constitutes the total pattern. I do say that it is time this Parliament and this nation made a greater effort and involved itself in a far more sophisticated appraisal of the role that manufacturing industry plays in Australia.

I read the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission and it is a fascinating document. But one of the problems of manufacturing industry- it has been classified already by a previous speaker in the debate- is its regional component. It is all very well to talk about the restructuring of industry but an industry can be restructured only if there is a thorough policy of the retraining of people in that industry. This nation would be far more deficient than other nations in the Western World in the provisions of adequate job retraining schemes. The governments of other nations in the Western world, by virtue of their geographic location and the nature of their work force, work on the basis that any worker will be retrained during the course of his working life up to three times. But this Parliament adopts this odd Canberra mentality. We talk about restructuring industry as if we were not talking about the lives of Australian citizens. But that is what we are talking about. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) talked about Wangaratta, a country town. If the textile industry were taken out of Wangaratta the simple exercise of retraining the people would not be the only thing involved, and they do not have the structures to do even that. We would be faced with the destruction of the economic base of a major regional centre. The sooner that is understood by some of the people who produced these reports, the better off we will all be.

In my view the approach to these issues has been far too academic and far too unrelated to the geographical and regional nature of Australian manufacturing industry. That is a problem which has bedevilled all governments, not merely this Government. It also bedevilled the former Whitlam Government. I believe that there must be an approach by government in terms of the amendment that has been moved in this House. It requires the Government to develop a medium or long-term economic strategy, including a viable manufacturing policy upon which to base general and consistent guidelines necessary for, among other things, the proper functioning of the Industries Assistance Commission. Probably I would have been prepared to add: The development of a medium or long-term strategy designed to benefit the development of Australian industry as such.

I am concerned that an economic imbalance will develop in Australia. Part of the nature of this country is the development of political pressure groups on a State basis. The economic development of New South Wales, Victoria and to a lesser extent South Australia rests very heavily upon their manufacturing industry components. Queensland and Western Australia can see their economic future in terms of mineral development. But in my State of Victoria it is absolutely essential that the government of the day adopts both a philosophy and an economic program which involves new attitudes by government towards industry. That involves the setting not merely of short-term objectives but also of long-term strategies. That is not something that can be worked out just by the Industries Assistance Commission. It involves a much closer relationship between the Minister and his advisers and those who are actually involved in the day to day problem of running industry.

There is a great deal of skill and capacity in Australian industry and in the Australian work force. I for one am not prepared to surrender the needs of that work force or the capacity of industry to some woolly minded objective. I believe we must get our priorities straight in this matter. For those reasons I support the amendment moved by the Opposition.

I would like to finish my speech on this note: I do not share certain views which were put by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). I believe that any representative of the textile industry or any other industry, at an election time or any other time, like any trade union official or any political lobbyist, is entitled to put pressure upon any political party or upon the government of the day in order to maximise whatever benefits may be achieved for those people in the industry which that person represents. That is a thoroughly legitimate political exercise. I share the view of the honourable member for Port Adelaide that the Government in reacting to that may well have made promises which in the final analysis it will not be able to keep. But I believe that it is a legitimate and proper exercise.

I hope that we will be able to develop a relationship between government, industry and the work force in industry by which the very real problems that confront manufacturing industry can be the subject of long-term economic planning and long-term economic policies which will enable the manufacturing industries in this great nation to develop- not merely to survive but to develop and to forge ahead. I believe that is the objective. If that objective is attained nobody has to worry about the sort of political pressure that comes from one sector of industry. This is part of our process. I suppose it is a reflection on all of us that it is necessary for any sector of manufacturing industry to get itself into that position. In my State and in the electorate that I represent the future of the rubber industry, the textile industry and the motor car industry is important to the living standards of ordinary Australian people and people with great skill, great technological knowledge and great capacity. It is important that when we approach these problems we see them in those terms. I believe that the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission would be a far more relevant document if it also saw those issues in those terms and took them as its starting point.

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

-This Government, as a free enterprise government, faces real problems in the area of its tariff policies. Its current policies must make everyone ponder about its ultimate and long-term philosophy. It is undoubtedly a truism that the free enterprise system can be an efficient system only if the Government does everything possible to encourage the enterprise of its citizens. A previous honourable member for Wakefield whose name has been mentioned in the debate tonight, Bert Kelly, has likened the industries of a free enterprise system to a bucket of worms. I will repeat his illustration, which is: In that bucket, virile young worms are trying to fight their way to the top; old fat worms wallow about screaming for help and protection in order to try to maintain their position. This Government, to its ultimate peril, may choose to ignore this fact of life. But I do not believe it will.

The difficulty every honourable member has in espousing clear personal guidelines is that nearly every issue has different implications and must be judged individually by the Industries Assistance Commission, by the Government and by each and every member of parliament who cares to put time and effort into that study. It is for this reason that the IAC itself must be given free rein to express proper economic reasons in advising government. If people would only realise that on each issue a final decision is and must be taken by the Government. I believe there would be less nonsense spoken and less pressure placed on the IAC. The IAC must retain its expertise, its impartiality and its capacity to judge dispassionately and I will take up that point a little later if I have time. The IAC is probably the only body in Australia today that in fact does that. Unless the IAC continues to function in this way its advice to government will become valueless.

Perhaps I might give some private advice to commissioners of the IAC. I urge them not to be unduly depressed, alarmed or demoralised by the amendments contained in this legislation. It is of vital importance that they continue and, where possible, improve the quality of their reports. In justice to the Government, this certainly is one of the aims that the Government has in view. The IAC must not withdraw from its responsibility to uncover absurdities. Many members of parliament will have recognised some of the absurdities so uncovered by the expertise of this body. It must not be deterred by those who screech that an IAC report has limited their capital program of expansion or has penalised their plans. It is not for the IAC to worry about that problem. It is for the IAC, as I see it, to give those types of warning signals.

I will not have time tonight to touch on unused protection, industries that feel they have to go off-shore, currency valuation changes and regional problems of industries in outlying areas. They are all important factors but I note that the Government says in effect that the IAC should consider them. I maintain that the IAC should not. I believe that the Government should consider these factors having regard to its ultimate role of responsibility. I admit that these are important factors. But surely the major problem in looking at the future economic expansion of Australian industries is to encourage a system of private enterprise and to have policies that reward adequately innovation and enterprise. Of course, I believe this is not currently the case. One of the difficulties facing the IAC at present in much of its advice to the Government is to find any recommendation that is acceptable to the Government in the current economic climate. My advice to the IAC is: Do not worry. I believe its time will come and that a greater realisation of the need to adjust to change will emerge in the community.

What explains the current Government’s attitude to tariff and to protection generally? The Opposition would say, and indeed has said, in its hunt for simplicity that we as a Party are involved with big business. That, of course, is patently absurd. The reason is that all manufacturing industries have incurred such a series of losses in recent years that there is no real incentive or confidence for investment to flow. The Fraser Government has yet to undo all the real damage caused by the Whitlam Government in an attempt to downgrade those industries, both big and small, that it regarded, and probably still regards, as its basic enemies. The Labor Party, in its struggle to make Canberra the centre of real power, trampled on all those firms which made up the free enterprise sector. Its wish for a trade union dominated central power base has at this point of time been thwarted. So the current Government has not only the problem of unemployment caused primarily by labour costing itself out of the market but also the problem of low capital investment. Only in the last quarter have we seen sectors such as mining, building and construction excluding housing and others of lesser extent increase their investment capacity. Yet, this activity is vital to the future of the nation.

Any believer in the free enterprise system must temporarily at least see the need for some protection as a necessity until confidence and thus capital expenditure returns. The public sector is still encroaching on the private sector as figures published in the Press only this week indicate. If we are not all to be employed by the government by the turn of the century public sector expenditure must be limited. I believe the Government is adopting a proper and responsible role in this respect.

We all need to understand the Government’s current attitude on protection. For my own part, I hope the Government will eventually agree with the following suggestions: I would develop a list of industries that the nation must have in a technological age and must, if necessary, be prepared to pay for. Likewise, I would develop a list of industries that we cannot afford to protect endlessly. Those industries must be given an indication, whether by the IAC or by the Government, that they must adjust in the future. Some have clearly been given this warning but seem incapable of absorbing the need to change or adjust. They seem to think that divine providence or the largesse of taxpayers will endlessly continue to fund. Some of these industries have no intention of changing, they have no intention of adjusting; and they have little regard for the export industries whose input costs soar as many of these inputs receive protection, thus ruining the competitive position of much of Australia’s exports on world markets. If these industries refuse to acknowledge their own precarious future I regard it as a role of the IAC to warn them.

I am grateful to the Government Whip for allowing me to speak for a few minutes in this debate. Indeed, I recollect I was gagged in the last three tariff debates in the last Parliament. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall confine my remarks to a danger point that I see in the Bill before the House. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), in his second reading speech, said:

The Bill also provides for changes in the structure of the TAA itself. The TAA will comprise one full-time member and there is provision for the Minister to appoint associate members for specific inquiries, thus allowing for the appointment of persons having expertise in a particular area as the need arises.

All I can say is this: I would feel very free to give the Minister my personal advice who I thought should be the associate member if I found that a tariff issue concerning brandy, for instance, was to be considered. Whether the Minister would take my advise is another matter again. I hope that the Minister would receive his advice not from the honourable member for Wakefield but from Mr McKinnon himself because only in that way will we get any dispassionate judgments or unbiassed comments on a problem. Frankly, I would much rather see the manager of Luna Park, someone experienced in the problems of banana selling or the steel industry sitting in judgment on the wine industry which is an industry vital to my electorate. I do not believe that a wine industry person should sit in judgment on wine problems or that a dairying person should sit in judgment on that industry in his- how can I describe it- teat pulling capacity. This is the point I am trying to make. I hope that the form of words the Minister used in his second reading speech does not specifically mean that he intends to look for expertise within an industry for the purpose of the giving of advice. I think that as an associate member, such a person would be put in a most invidious position. He would be accused either of being too biased in favour of his industry or not biased enough because he was frightened.

There are other problems in relation to this matter which do not make me particularly happy, but, I have listened carefully to the debate and to the Minister and I believe that the Government’s intentions are honourable in this regard. I conclude by saying that I am in complete support of the IAC as a body, I admire its expertise and I shall resist* any effort to castigate, to neutralise or to emasculate that body in the future as I believe its role is vital to the future economic strength of this nation.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I shall speak for only a short time. I realise that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) wishes to reply to the debate and I shall keep an eye on the clock. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), particularly that section which points out that the Opposition deplores the failure of the Government to have a medium or long term strategy, including a viable manufacturing policy, upon which to base the general and consistent guidelines necessary for, among other things, the proper functioning of the Industries Assistance Commission. I think that this is one of the greatest faults of the Government. From the commencement of the 1970s Australia has suffered from not having what one could call a viable manufacturing policy- a policy under which industry, the trade union movement and employees knew where they were going. I remember serving on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence when it was looking at the industrial back up necessary for the defence forces. The point was made strongly to it by the electronics industry that its great problem over a number of years has been that Australia simply did not have any long term objectives- what it called an industry policy; a policy under which the industry knew where it was going.

I think that the Opposition’s shadow Minister in this field- the honourable member for Adelaide- spoke excellently tonight on the problems and the future of industry as a whole. During the 1950s and 1960s Australia in effect lived beyond its means. As a nation we spent more than we earned. To make up for our foreign currency deficits we depended on the importation of capital. We were known as the country of opportunity. I can recall stating in this Parliament time and again, including when I was first elected as the honourable member for Mitchell in 1961, that the day of reckoning had to come and that we could not continue, by directive from the Treasury to the Reserve Bank, to encourage the importation of capital as eventually it would mean that we would have two basic problems: Firstly the impact upon our reserves of the withdrawal of capital; and, secondly, the big increase in invisibles caused by the repatriation of profits. That has occurred. Australia will have an endemic balance of payments problem for some time to come. Today multi-nationals are not looking at us as the country of opportunity. They are finding today that in countries such as the Philippines, Singapore and Indonesia they can build their factories much more cheaply, that they do not require the same sophisticated equipment that is required here and that they can utilise cheap labour in the manufacturing process itself. Accordingly, today capital in effect is going from Australia to those countries. That in itself means an export of Australian jobs. We are suffering from this because of our over dependence on overseas capital during the Menzies era of the 1950s and 1960s. I am very sorry that this is the situation.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are eating up the time for the adjournment debate.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Is the honourable member for Fadden, who formerly was the honourable member for Griffith, starting these antics again?

Mr DEPUi i SPEAKER (ur Jenkins -

Order! The honourable member should return to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are not even on the list of speakers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Fadden will cease interjecting.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Chifley was just made an attack on me and he is not even on the list of speakers in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved. The honourable member for Fadden will resume his seat.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think the honourable member knows yet what electorate he represents.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will return to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The position is that Australia is today reaping the rewards of that period. I put the point very strongly that there will be very big changes to industry in Australia. These will come about because of the problems that we have and the competition that we will experience from countries to our north. As they develop and as their populations increase the competition for Australia will increase. It is well and truly time that Australia had a full inquiry into our future manpower policy and the needs of industry so that we can establish a firm industry policy for the future. Once again I make the point that I strongly support the amendment. I hope it will be carried by the House.

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– in reply- During this debate Opposition speakers have shown absolutely no enthusiasm for the amendment moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). Indeed, speaker after speaker from the Opposition side of the House have virtually apologised for the amendment. The Opposition has indicated clearly its support for the Bills. It has indicated that it will not oppose the motion for the second reading of these Bills. What little criticism has come from the other side of the House has been met by my second reading speech and the speeches by members of the Government parties. However, there are two or three points to which I should like to refer.

Firstly, the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short) asked whether I would give an undertaking that when future references are sent to the Industries Assistance Commission a specific time limit would be attached to those references. It is not practical to do this, but I give an undertaking to the honourable member for Ballarat that the Government will require these references to be dealt with expeditiously both at the IAC level and the Government level when the reports are presented. There are occasions when time limits are attached to references but it is not practical to do so in all cases.

A great deal has been said during the course of the debate about the long term situation in industry. Indeed, reference has been made to this aspect on both sides of the House. I should like briefly to draw attention to the fact that the Government has arranged for a study of this aspect to be undertaken by Sir John Crawford. He has been specifically requested to focus his attention upon the adjustment problems which eventually will be faced in the most highly protected Australian industries.

Having said that, I want to refer to the comments by the honourable member for Adelaide when he led for the Opposition. He said that his Party stood for full employment and then he went on to attack the Government over its handling of protection for Australian industries. Let me remind the honourable member that it was his Prime Minister who on 27 June 1973 asked the then chairman of the Tariff Board to report on possible ways of increasing imports. That is the famous document that was not circulated. Indeed, the Prime Minister of the day referred to it as a confidential report. He said he wanted it in a hurry and he got it in a hurry. It was delivered to him on 15 July 1973 which is a little over two weeks from when it was requested. When that report was delivered to the Prime Minister it was clearly pointed out to him that if the Government of the day were to act upon a 25 per cent across the board tariff cut such a decision would reduce employment by more than 5 per cent in a number of areas and affect some 33,000 jobs, mainly in the textile, clothing and footwear industries.

This is a fairly serious thing, particularly in the light of the fact that tonight the honourable member for Adelaide said that his Party stands for full employment. It is also interesting to note that during the last election campaign the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when confronted by the then Treasurer on the television program Monday Conference, said-

Mr Armitage:

– You are making a political speech and not talking about the Bill.

Mr FIFE:

– I am answering the honourable member for Adelaide, and I am entitled to do so. On that occasion the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that his Government had had an over employment problem. They were the words that he used when referring to the reasons why his Government introduced the 25 per cent tariff cut. The Government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Adelaide. The honourable member did not have his heart in it, nor did any member of the Opposition who supported him.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I want it known and recorded that the Opposition decided not to divide on this Bill tonight in order to give more debating time to honourable members on both sides. Of course, I know that I am not allowed to refer to the second reading debate but, in view of remarks that have been made at some stage about the Opposition not having its heart in the amendment, I must say that I was sorely tempted to break an arrangement. I wish that the people who have the charge of the business of this House would acquaint Ministers with these sorts of arrangements so that honourable members are not tempted to break arrangements in that way.

Mr Armitage:

– I specifically addressed myself to the amendment.

Mr HURFORD:

-Not only did the honourable member for Chifley specifically address himself to the amendment but I listened, either in the chamber or in my office, to every speech from the Opposition. Every one of our members was wholly in favour of the medium and long term planning strategy which is the heart of the amendment. The other matter raised at some stage- 1 am not allowed to say when- related to whether the Australian Labor Party has a policy of full employment. It was an incredible argument that was put up which referred to the 25 per cent tariff cut at a time when there was raging inflation in this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! I remind the honourable member for Adelaide that he may not revive the second reading debate.

Mr HURFORD:

– I will relate my remarks to the third reading because 1 know that, by doing so, I will be in order. I state again that, despite the fact that there have been 25 per cent tariff cuts in the past when Labor was in office, in no way does that suggest that the Labor Party does not have a policy of full employment. That is far from correct. That sort of cut was brought in at a time of raging inflation and over full employment. It was done on the recommendation of a committee of some of the most expert people in this country. With the benefit of hindsight we can all be clever about these things. Indeed it was a wrong measure and many of us have admitted subsequently, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was a wrong measure.

It ill becomes the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) to introduce such irrevelant material into this debate and to make charges against the Labor Party which cannot be substantiated in any way. As I have stated at another stage of this debate, we have supported the Industries Assistance Commission and its independence with all the vehemence that we can muster. At the same time we believe that guidelines have to be given to the Commission. We have stated in our amendment and on many occasions that the sorts of guidelines that must be given to the Commission are related to medium and long term economic strategy. I am glad to have had the opportunity again at the third reading stage to reiterate those views.

Until we have such a strategy we will go on bumping along on the bottom of the worst recessionary period that this country has experienced at least since the great depression. Until the Government introduces some medium and long term planning to this country we will go on having the IAC acting merely as a fireman seeking to put out every grass fire that is burning in every direction, as they burn on so many occasions in this country from one end of it to the other. I deplore the fact that the Minister introduced those sorts of remarks when he should have been replying to the debate and replying to specific points raised in the debate by the Opposition. He introduced new material. I am glad to have had the opportunity to say something about that at the third reading stage.-

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 421

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading f» m si e-r-ti ti/n -.’.- oi-J Frs m T T~> It n ion; *Sr** motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in.the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 422

ADJOURNMENT

Sir John Kerr -Parliamentary Committees -Koalas -Polish Immigrants

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is the greatest single personal destructive force in Australia’s political history since Billy Hughes. Like Hughes, the Prime Minister has an enormous, inordinate, unappeasable drive for power. Like Richard Nixon, with whom he shares many characteristics, he is an ostensible conservative who does not hesitate to radicalise political institutions and conventions so long as his actions help to consolidate him in power. The Prime Minister sets out not merely to divide but to destroy. Five major victims have fallen to his dagger. The first was John Gorton in 1971; the second was Billy Snedden in 1975; the third was Gough Whitlam in 1975; the fourth was Phillip Lynch in 1977 and the fifth was Sir John Kerr in 1978. I never thought I would feel a degree of sympathy for Sir John Kerr, surely the least sympathetic figure to be Governor-General since the Duke of Gloucester. But whereas the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam) was the victim of Sir John Kerr and the present Prime Minister in 1975, 1 suspect that in 1978 Sir John Kerr has been the victim of a master strategem by the most cynical pragmatist in our political history. Sir John Kerr has been lavishly rewarded, winkled out of office prematurely by the promise of the job with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation and then forced out of his Paris appointment by a storm of protest which the Prime Minister must have anticipated and, I suggest, has actually welcomed.

Under the Prime Minister’s patronage Sir John Kerr became the greatest collector of honours in our political history. In a two-year period he collected a GCMG a PC, a GCVO and an AK. This one man dynasty is worthy of being ranked with the Bonapartes, the Harmsworths and the Coles family. The Governor-General was no longer the fount of all honour; he was the repository of honours. Now Sir John Kerr has been dropped from a great height. It was made clear by the Prime Minister’s explanatory statement today that the Prime Minister was not even available to talk personally to the ex- Viceroy. Sir John now faces the personal tragedy of exile from his own country. Even if he is consoled by financial security it is still exile. He is Australia ‘s most famous remittance man, our very own Flying Dutchman, condemned to eating the bitter bread of banishment, a latter day Julien Sorel.

Our cynical Prime Minister sprang the trap for Sir John in two ways: Firstly by inducing him to repudiate his own declaration that a GovernorGeneral should not grant an early election for partisan advantage where the Parliament is workable; and, secondly, by appointing him to a job which he had personally declared redundant, had abolished and resurrected only to suit Sir John’s convenience. The Prime Minister, like Sir John himself, has destroyed every patron he ever had. I believe that it was essential for the self esteem of the Prime Minister to remove the man who put him in office so that the events of 1975 could be forgotten. The great destroyer has struck again with his usual deadly aim but I believe that the acts of 1975, 1977 and 1978 will not be forgotten and I believe that the Australian people will revolt against them.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-This afternoon in the debates on the setting up of Parliamentary committees reference was made on both sides of” the House to a number of suggestions which would improve the committee system. I think it is important to make one further point in relation to that matter. In 1977 the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and I appeared on a radio program in Melbourne, the Terry Lane show. The reaction from some of the listeners to that program was one of amazement that a member of the Liberal Party and a member of the Australian Labor Party could appear on a program together and discuss- one might perhaps question whether it was discussed intelligently- the subject of the operation of Parliament. There have been many discussions over the past two weeks in relation to the operation of this Parliament, particularly the way in which the committee system can be improved.

I make one further point in relation to publicity for the work which committees do. It is not publicity for the sake of publicity or publicity for the members of those particular committees but publicity for the actual work carried out in the hope that the media will take up the work of those committees and engender discussion in the community. If that can take place I have no doubt that the deliberations of” the committees will be improved and we will move away from the situation which apparently exists at presentthat many members of the media consider that Question Time and matters of public importance are the only deliberations in this House worthy of recording. The committees are not sensational; in many cases they are not provocative; but the work they do has enormous impact on the community at large, and the more public discussion we can have on their work the better. I add those further remarks to those made by honourable members on both sides of the House about ways to improve the work of the committees.

I move now to a matter which some might consider frivolous but which I think has some importance. I mention it not only because there are so many koalas on Phillip Island in the electorate of McMillan. I will not mention the names of honourable members of this House or the other place who are under the impression that koalas belong to the bear species. When on parliamentary visits overseas they love referring to them as koala bears. I was prompted to mention this matter tonight because today’s Melbourne Age carried a letter from the chairman of the Country Roads Board in reply to a letter from one Sonia Graver who was concerned about koala bear signs which she believed had been erected by the Country Roads Board. Mr Donaldson makes it clear today that the signs were not erected by the Country Roads Board, that the Board understands that the correct terminology is koala and that the koala has nothing to do with bears.

If I may make one point in the short time available to me tonight I would ask honourable members to use the correct terminology when they are talking to overseas visitors or are in delegations visiting overseas countries. I am indebted to the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) for the scientific pronunciation and I am pleased to be able to refer to him instead of the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam) who was not available this afternoon. The scientific name for the koala is Phascolarctos Cinereus. Apparently Phascolarctus refers to the Greek pouched bear, hence the misunderstanding by so many people, and Cinereus refers to the ash grey colouring of the bear. I would not like to bore honourable members be referring to some of the old Aboriginal names for the koala, such as Cullawines. In Sydney the expression was koolahs. Of course, people in New South Wales will never get it right. In the Murray region they were referred to as Karbors and other names include Bangaroos, Koolewongs, Namagoons and Colos. The first reference made to the koala was in 1798 and is contained in the historical records of New South Wales. A young man reported on ‘an animal which the natives call a Cullawine, which much resembles the sloths of America’. The fact is that it is not a bear. It is an herbivorous marsupial. I will not bore honourable members by referring to the fact that each adult animal consumes about two and a half pounds of leaves per day and that the average male weighs 23 pounds.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr STEWART:
Grayndler

– I have been approached by the Federal Council of Polish Associations in Australia, supported by the Polish branch of the RAAF Association, the RSL Polish Branch, the Polish Club Ltd, the ExServicemen’s Association of the Polish Home Army, the Polish Association in New South Wales and the Polish Educational Society in New South Wales about the welfare problems facing the Polish community in Australia. They have placed their case before the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and also before the Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants. These bodies require urgent action on certain matters. They have a problem with regard to the aged. They want a detailed survey of their needs; the establishment of a Polish-oriented psychiatric unit; the urgent appointment of an interpreter to the New South Wales Health Commission as an interim measure until the establishment of the psychiatric unit; the appointment of a full time Polish speaking social worker under the GIA scheme and funding for the Polish Welfare and Information Bureau in New South Wales. They have placed a case before the Minister and substantiated it with certain facts.

There are now approximately 87,000 Poles in Australia. Approximately 69,000 arrived between the years 1 947 and 1 95 1 . There have been very few arrive since then because very few of them have been allowed to come to Australia. Thirty-three thousand children “have been born to the Polish families that have come to Australia. So, the majority of Poles in Australia have been here for 25 years or more. In the whole of that time, they have been practically a forgotten group. They have been given very little assistance at all by any government. They were refugees when they arrived and had to make their own way in our land. Because they were independent people, they generally looked after their own welfare problems. Now they are an aging community within Australia. About 60 per cent of them are in the 46 to 6 1 years age group and 20 per cent are in the 60 years plus age group. So, for the next 1 5 years or so- perhaps this applies even now- they will have an age problem to face.

Because of their refugee status when they arrived, because of the age at which they arrived and because of the inter-marriage of Poles with other nationalities, they also have a language difficulty. A lot of the elderly people now have no young children of Polish extract with whom to discuss their problems. So they need, firstly, a survey of their needs and, secondly, the appointment of an interpreter. Because of their refugee status and the problems in Poland during the Second World War and thereafter, there are great psychiatric problems in the Polish community. There are many mental breakdowns.

Many of the Polish people who came to Australia shortly after the war were single males, who had a professional standing and professional qualifications. But they were unable to have their qualifications recognised within Australia. They have had anxiety problems imposed upon them since their arrival. They urgently need assistance. They have not asked for much during the whole of the time they have been here. As I said, there are about 87,000 of them in Australia. So, at this stage, when they see these ‘ problems mounting, they ask for assistance.

I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) and also the Minister for Social Security to have a close and compassionate look at the problems of the Polish community within Australia. But, at the same time as they are looking at the problems of the Polish people within Australia, they might as well look at the welfare problems of the whole of the ethnic communities because most ethnic communities here face problems similar to those faced by the Polish community. On behalf of the Polish community, I make this plea to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

-The inconsistency and the hypocrisy of the Labor Party about Sir John Kerr is at once amazing and nauseating. Honourable members opposite complained and demeaned themselves when the appointment of Sir John Kerr as Ambassador was announced. Now they rave like Neanderthals when he resigns. Their positions on these events are totally inconsistent. They also suffer from incredible delusions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden)- fortunately for us they appointed him as their Leader- stands in this chamber and says something about the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) having something to do with the resignation. But they produce not one whit of evidence, not one whit of any factual matter other than their own paranoia. The simple fact is they do not like getting beaten. They were thrashed in the 1975 general election, much to their great surprise. They were thrashed also in the 1 977 general election.

They have a paranoia and phobia about the Prime Minister. Their own former Leader, the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam), swaggered his way around Australia for three years while he was Prime Minister. He lorded it over the country as if it were his manor and treated everybody as his vassals. He had a massive ego. When the present Prime Minister in 1975 stood up to the honourable member for Werriwa, pushed him electorally in the face, and secured a very great victory, they were stunned and shattered. That is why they have this incredible paranoia about the Prime Minister, the man who brought this country out of the mire into which the Labor Government had plunged it and the man who has ensured its economic future and the welfare. Honourable members opposite are just absolutely paranoid. They talk about the ‘destroyer’. They were destroyed by two things: Firstly, the ballot box and, secondly, their own Leader who in 1 975 destroyed himself.

The second area of their hypocricy is evident when we look back to the days when they lauded Sir John. In Sydney there is a clique of Labor lawyers. It was started just before the Second World War. After the War they all got together again. They had a sort of basic aim. That aim was to assert to the greatest possible extent their ego over Sydney, over the Bar, over the judges they appeared before and over the Australian community. They all got together in chambers and came to some paranoid conclusion that society was wrong, that it was no good. They were going to go all out to fix it and all our institutions could go down the drain for all they cared. They were going to fix everything. They sat down and made their great plans. In the name of a great man, Chifley, they often delivered lectures that were absolutely pernicious to the interests of Australia. They sat about deciding that they had to take over this country and sort out all matters because everything was wrong and was no good. They had no affinity with the average man. From the days of Curtin and Chifley when it was a great party and looked after the average man, about that time the Labor Party split and it fell into the hands of these ego-maniacs and all the intellectual professors and others whose numbers they had built up around them.

Mr McLean:

– Pseudo intellectuals.

Mr NEIL:

– Yes, pseudo intellectuals. And on they went. But what was the formula? The formula was to get into the Labor movement and say to the people: ‘We have a degree. We will not join the Liberal Party because it is too hard to get pre-selection there’. They knew they had to have a bit of ability as all the honourable members on this side of the House have. They said to themselves: ‘We will slink into the Labor Party. We will tell the people we have a degree or two. We will con them. We will fool them. Later on, we will con and fool the Australian people. But what we need to do is sit up the odd show pony like the honourable member for Werriwa’. Now they have one in New South Wales- Mr Wran. He is finding his feet of clay in a hurry, as he now faces the outstanding new Leader of the Opposition there. They said: ‘We will set up these show ponies, trot them out and fool the people. When we get in our ego will run the show’. But of course it did not because they did not have enough brains to understand economic policy and the trade unions of the Left, the extremists got them.

I remind honourable members of the unctuous remarks of the honourable member for Werriwa when he appointed Sir John Kerr as GovernorGeneral. He lauded Sir John. He said Sir John was a wonderful appointment, as indeed he was. The trouble was that Sir John Kerr had also been Chief Justice of New South Wales. He was also a great Australian and happened to have a semblance of balance which all these pseudo egomaniacs and pseudo intellectuals just do not have. Sir John saw the light in 1975. He saw exactly what was happening. He gave the people their choice. The people exercised that choice at the ballot box and so destroyed the Labor Party. Then we get people who are promoted, apparently, because they do not fit into the genteel atmosphere in Victoria, coming in here, hopping on the bandwaggon and telling us that Sir John Kerr’s actions were wrong. Rubbish! The Labor Party is totally hypocritical about the entire issue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-We have listened this week to numerous justifications by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) of the behaviour of Sir John Kerr in November 1975- we had a few more assertions in the speech just concluded- as though such justifications were relevant to the recently aborted ambassadorial appointment. Nevertheless, I think it is necessary to reject these justifications in order that they do not become accepted truths. I quote the words of the Prime Minister because I have a certain respect for facts:

There was no option but for the Governor-General to act in the way in which he did … Sir John Kerr was forced to act. He acted honourably . . .

I quote the Deputy Prime Minister who just gives us a string of words: . . . what Sir John Kerr did in 1975 . . . was right, proper, correct, legal, constitutional, necessary and inescapable.

Government supporters- Hear, hear!

Dr BLEWETT:

– I am sure that Government supporters would agree because I suggest that such statements are profoundly simplistic and could only be uttered by men profoundly unaware of the debate that has taken place in this country in the past two years, profoundly unaware of everything that every serious commentator has said. The evidence that we now have suggests that, whilst Sir John Kerr, was acting legally, what he did was not right, proper, correct, constitutional, necessary, inescapable or even honourable. Firstly, we can all agree that Sir John’s dismissal of the former Prime Minister was, to say the least, unusual. Even Liberal Party supporters might agree with that proposition. For instance, no British monarch has dismissed a Prime Minister since 1 834. The dismissal was not only unusual but also unique. Professor Geoffrey Sawer- given the illiteracy of Liberal Party supporters, they may not want me to quote a professorwho is regarded as one of the greatest experts on constitutional matters in this country, said:

The peculiarity of the Kerr-Whitlam case was that it was the first in any Westminister style system in which a Chief Minister with a clear majority in the popular House had been dismissed from office solely on account of his failure to obtain Supply in the upper House.

This use of great powers was unusual and unique. If such an extraordinary and controversial breach of custom and tradition were to be justified in any way or, in the words of the Prime Minister, was to be proper, the vice-regal powers should have been used, firstly, in a bi-partisan fashion and, secondly only as a measure of last resort. Sir John Kerr in fact used the powers of his great office in such a manner that he earned the plaudits of the Liberal supporters and the hostility of Labor supporters. They were used in a manner which inevitably branded the office of Governor-General as partisan. Honourable members opposite do not have to take my word for this. Let us hear what some of the commentators had to say. Lloyd and Clark had this to say:

Kerr was guilty of gross unfairness.

Kelly said:

The Governor-General ‘s overall conduct put himself in a position where the accusation of political partisanship could be levelled against the Crown.

Butler, who is perhaps the most respected British commentator on Australian politics, described his action as ‘profoundly partisan’. It was scarcely right, scarcely proper, scarcely correct behaviour in the monarch’s representative. The charges of partisanship are clearly related to the issue of timing, for time was of the essence in his decision. There was no necessity to make it; there was nothing inescapable about the GovernorGeneral acting as he did on 1 1 November. There was no immediate shortage of Supply. Supply would have lasted for another 10 days to a fortnight. As we all know, Supply was never dependent on the outcome of a House of Representatives election but merely on the granting of that election. Thus Sir John Kerr had at least another 10 days, possibly a fortnight, to allow a political resolution or to seek a bi-partisan solution.

Mr Shipton:

– Gough would have sacked him; you know that.

Dr BLEWETT:

– I will deal with that in a moment.

Mr Bourchier:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a new member of this Parliament to come into the House and blatantly cast aspersions on the character of a former Governor-General of this country who was only carrying out his proper duty in his role as Governor-General?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will resume his seat. There is no substance in the point of order.

Dr BLEWETT:

– Unlike most honourable members opposite who have commented on this matter, I have endeavoured to provide evidence to support the assertions that I have been making. As I was saying, Sir John Kerr had 10 days, possibly a fortnight, to allow a political resolution or to seek a bi-partisan solution. If he had been forced to act, he would have been much more justified in doing so a fortnight later.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Cohen- I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the last few nights this House has been subjected to this big yobbo from Bendigo interjecting continually on speakers from this side of the House and you have failed completely to protect the interests of honourable members on this side of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Robertson will resume his seat. Honourable members will come to order. It is regrettable that one of the few occasions available to private members to address the House should be abused and misused in the manner in which it is being done tonight.

Mr Armitage:

– Particularly by . the Government Whip.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley will remain silent. Certainly some of the speeches have been mildly provocative and it is understandable that they should provoke a response, but the response has been quite excessive and I do not propose to tolerate it further.

Mr Cohen- I rise to a point of order,, Mr Deputy Speaker. For how long will the honourable member for Bendigo be allowed to go on with his interjecting and wasting the time of honourable members on this side of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that the honourable member for Robertson be requested to withdraw the remark he made earlier. It was most offensive. It is typical of the sort of remark that only he can make. Whenever he opens his mouth in this Parliament that is the only type of remark he ever makes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo has established his point of order. I call on the honourable member for Robertson to withdraw the remark which he addressed to the honourable member for Bendigo.

Mr Cohen:

– I withdraw the word ‘big’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Robertson will withdraw unqualifiedly.

Mr Cohen:

– I withdraw unqualifiedly.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Robertson made a reflection on the Chair. I ask that he be required to withdraw it. He said that you were not protecting the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order. The Chair is protecting the Opposition.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I wonder what on earth honourable members of the Australian Labor Party will talk about in future adjournment debates in the House after their enthusiasm and interest in interring the public status of Sir John Kerr has declined. It is intriguing to note that they are so bereft of comments to make about their own electorates, which apparently are doing reasonably well under this Government, and they are incapable of raising matters of national moment during the adjournment debate. I wonder whether in fact we have done them a great disservice by accepting Sir John Kerr’s resignation from the post at the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. We have now left them bereft of a current topic to discuss. I suppose the last flutterings could go on for a little while.

Opposition members have spent half of the time allocated for this adjournment debate being excited about the matter. That is particularly so of the new honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), who presented to the House the sort of dispassionate academic approach which I suppose one expects to be heard in universities these days. If one was in fact examining an issue and had a genuine concern to express a fair and justifiable position, I should think that one would cite authorities which have expressed both points of view. We heard only one side of the proposition put. We heard authorities being cited ad absurdum. As the honourable member for Bonython may well know, although with his academic background I doubt that he would because it relates to the other side of the issue, there are authorities which can be effectively cited to establish a proposition exactly opposite to that which the honourable member presented. There is a host of authorities, including that of a professor of law at Sydney University, which is a university that has a far greater reputation, justifiably earned, than that which the honourable member for Bonython graced.

The proposition maintained by the Opposition is that there has been a great debate. We are asked whether we are aware of the great debate. Of course we are aware of the great debate about Sir John Kerr. It was a debate in which the people of Australia participated. They participated in it in such a way that they voted overwhelmingly in favour of what Sir John Kerr did. The Opposition Party was annihilated at the polls. I submit that the only area of grave concern, deep current division and great debate at the moment is within the Labor Party. While the Labor Party has been tearing itself apart trying to work out whose fault it was that it lost the last election it has in fact thrown a Christian to the lions. There is nothing within the Party opposite that can generate a genuine and proper opposition in this place. As a result honourable members opposite are spending their time fighting about who caused their latest disaster. They say that the disastrous results of the previous election were the fault of Sir John Kerr.

As the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) says, the wounds were totally self-inflicted. It would be nice and such a pleasant surprise if some honourable member opposite were to come into the House and say something that was new, interesting and accurate about the Kerr affair. If honourable members opposite are endeavouring to demonstrate that the bulk of academic opinion or senior legal opinion is of one mind, would it not be more honest to admit that there is a substantial body of legal opinion which takes the view that constitutionally and legally Sir John Kerr acted totally correctly and with propriety. What concerns me, however, is that now that Sir John Kerr is without the protection of his former office apparently we are to witness scurrilous attacks continuing to be made on him, despite his decision not to accept the role as Ambassador to UNESCO. One wonders whether the attacks on him are simply viciousness.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the House stands adjourned till 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday next.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 428

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Primary Producers: Tax Averaging (Question No. 6)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

Will he provide details of the statistical method used to establish his assessment that primary producers paid $50m additional tax because of changes in the tax averaging provisions in the 1 975-76 Budget.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The Prime Minister in a reply to a question without notice from Mr J. W. Bourchier, M.P., on 25 August 1 977 indicated that the effect of the Hayden tax changes on the averaging system was to increase the tax payable by primary producers by $40m to $50m a year. As the tenor of the Prime Minister’s comments made clear, the amounts mentioned were intended to give only an indication of the magnitude of the revenue involved. The figures had been derived from estimates made by the Australian Taxation Office. These had indicated that the cost of averaging in respect of the 1974-75 income year, i.e. before the introduction of the Hayden changes, was about $90m and that for the 1976-77 income year, i.e. after the introduction of the Hayden changes, it was about $40m. It is not possible from available information to estimate precisely the impact of those changes on the tax that has since been payable by primary producers.

Whaling (Question No. 80)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

am asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government approached the Western Australian Government with a view to undertaking research into the effects which a decision to close down the whaling industry would have on the economy of the Albany district along the lines of the suggestion that the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry made for an approach by the Government to the Queensland Government concerning the economy of Maryborough (Hansard, 22 October 1970, page 2751, 12 September 1972, page 1236 and 8 November 1977, page 3162).
  2. Which Federal departments have undertaken research into the effects of closing down the whaling industry.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. The Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development is undertaking a preliminary assessment of the effects of a closure of the whaling company on the economy of the Albany district in connection with the forthcoming inquiry.

Model Food Legislation (Question No. 148)

Mr E, G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

m asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

Did the Health Ministers at their conference on 9 and 10 February 1978 approve the model food legislation which they initiated at their conference in May 1975 (Hansard, 18 October 1977, page 2126).

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

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

No; drafting of the Model Food Act is well advanced but not yet complete. The Health Ministers have given the project a very high priority and I am hopeful that the Act will be completed for the 1979 conference.

The Health Ministers have also directed that Uniform Food Regulations be developed to accompany the Act.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 March 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780302_reps_31_hor108/>.