House of Representatives
7 April 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1203

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned members and ex-members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) On 14th February, 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces.
  2. The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognizes the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services.
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia.
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognized by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces.
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (C.M.F.) and the R.A.A.F. Citizens Ar Force. by Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Graham, Mr Jacobi, Mr Jarman, Mr Lloyd, Mr Lucock, Mr Neil, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Porter, Mr Shack, Mr Stewart and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States

Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1 974-77, renewed for one year expiring on 30 June 1 978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at 30 June 1 977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $ 1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Birney, Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Cadman, Mr Gillard, Mr Groom, Mr Howe, Mr James, Mr Jarman, Mr Roger Johnston, Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

University at Albury-Wodonga

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Wangaratta respectfully showeth that the decision to abandon the construction of a University in the Albury-Wodonga Growth Centre discriminates against people residing in South East of New South Wales and North East Victoria and who are seeking Tertiary Education.

That, apart from providing essential education facilities, the construction of a university in the Albury-Wodonga Growth Centre would provide the following benefits:

  1. Increase and broaden employment opportunities in the area.
  2. b) Add strength and meaning to the Government ‘s decentralisation policies.
  3. Increase local employment opportunities during construction.
  4. ) Assist in attracting new industry to the area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the decision to abandon the construction of a University in the AlburyWodonga Growth Centre be reconsidered.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Pastor Peter Mullen and Members of the Full Gospel Chuch at 5 Lefroy Street, North Hobart electors of the Divisions of Denison and Franklin respectfully sheweth

That the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), has purchased episodes of the American television programme known as S.O.A.P. for screening in Australia on the national network.

The aforesaid programme was thought to be so pernicious and ethically offensive by the American population that it generated much unfavourable press, and caused no less than eleven sponsors to withdraw their support from the commercial stations broadcasting it. This programme purports to generate irresponsible merriment by shamelessly exploiting the tragedies of adultery, homo-sexuality, transvestism, impotency, incest, crime and senility. Such a program broadcasted on the Australian national network can only be detrimental to the welfare of the Australian society in as much as it will either cause or aggravate problems in the areas of emotional stability, delinquency, harmonious human relations, the unity of the family, and furthermore, the programme is an insult to the Christian creed and to those upholding it.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

  1. 1 ) The screening of episodes of S.O.A.P. by the ABC be prevented,
  2. That appropriate action may be instituted to prevent further abuses of discretion by the ABC in the selection of programmes.

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

Petition received.

Public Libraries

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that the public library services of the State of New South Wales are inadequate both in quality and quantity and that the burden of provision is placed too heavily upon local government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will ensure the implementation of the recommendation of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into public libraries as a matter of urgency.

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

Petition received.

page 1204

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1204

QUESTION

SALE OF GOLD COAST PROPERTIES

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I direct a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and refer him to a statement he made on 15 December last year that he had an interest in two

Gold Coast units. I ask the Minister: Was his name used in Press releases to promote the sale of units in the Golden Gate development in Surfers Paradise? Was his name ever used in the promotion of another Gold Coast development known as ‘Surfers International’, in which he paid a deposit on a unit? Further, is it a fact that the Minister’s name was used to advertise on Melbourne radio station 3UZ yet another Gold Coast development? Will the Minister inform the House how many units he either owns or has options to purchase on the Gold Coast?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– These matters were the subject of a detailed public statement towards the end of last year. Frankly, I have nothing to add to the statement that was brought down as to the facts of the matter. I do recall that one radio station in Sydney did use my name. I draw to the attention of the honourable gentleman the fact that the radio station was owned by the Labor Party. If the honourable gentleman is suggesting that I might take legal action against the Labor Party I will certainly bear that in mind.

page 1204

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA: ADVERTISING

Mr BURNS:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

-The Minister for Post and Telecommunications will be aware that, as part of its advertising activities, Telecom Australia has supported a number of sporting events, in particular a golf tournament and a tennis championship. Can the Minister say whether that is considered by the Government to be an appropriate advertising involvement for Telecom?

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for his question. It has been asked of me by a number of members of the community and by other members of Parliament. I do not think that anyone would disagree that Telecom Australia should advertise its services in an effort to build up the use of those services and therefore to reduce the cost to the consumer. However, I share the concern of the honourable member about the extent of the involvement of Telecom in sponsorship activities in respect of sporting events. I have written formally to the Australian Telecommunications Commission asking it to provide me with the rationale behind this approach to advertising.

page 1204

SALE OF GOLD COAST PROPERTIES

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in his statement of 15 December 1977, referred to a loan from QBE Insurance Ltd. Is the Minister aware that only three purchases of units in the Golden Gate development -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honourable member will not give information. He may seek information.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Is it a fact that the $79,000 loan which the Minister obtained from QBE Insurance Ltd was at an interest rate of 1 1 % per cent with a repayment period of 15 years. Can the Minister inform the House why he received such favourable terms?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I think that the smear tactic is being employed again today. I have no doubt that the first two questions are only part of a series of questions which the Opposition may well have in mind. All I need say to the House is that these matters have been subjected to a very detailed and exhaustive examination by persons independent of government. I refer to statements which have been issued earlier by Irish, Young and Outhwaite, chartered accountants, who are well known throughout the country. I refer also to comparable statements made by a national firm of solicitors, Mallesons, and I refer to the independent judgment which was a matter of public record by Mr Steven Charles, Q.C. Frankly, I have nothing further to add to those statements.

page 1205

QUESTION

GREEK COMMUNITY

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In view of the vast publicity given to the recent arrests of persons for alleged social security frauds, what steps has the Minister taken to assure the Greek community that prosecutions directed at individuals do not imply condemnation of that community as a whole and to thank those members of the community who did their duty and assisted the authorities with their inquiries?

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

– I thank the honourable member for St George for his question. He, along with other members of the House, has a large community of Greek origin living in his electorate. I think we should make it absolutely clear that naturally enough all members of the Australian community are subject to the law. But, having said that, again I make it absolutely clear that these people who have been charged in relation to alleged frauds with respect to social security payments have been charged as individuals , not as members of any community or as people of any ethnic community background. It is an unfortunate fact that in situations of this nature some parts of the media tend to lay stress on the ethnic background of people involved. I would hope that all areas of the media in reporting instances of this nature would keep in mind the effect that their reports can have on the successful integration of people into the broader Australian community. There is no need for the members of the large Greek community in Australia to feel ashamed of their efforts in relation to the development of Australia as a nation. They make up one of the largest ethnic communities in Australia. They have a very long and distinguished history in contributions to the development of this country. I finish my answer by saying that members of the Greek community in Sydney have distinguished themselves by their efforts to assist the investigation because they, like all other Australians, feel that, if fraud is being perpetrated, they as individuals need to assist the authorities to bring the perpetrators of that fraud to justice, no matter what their ethnic background may be.

page 1205

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE: HOME LOAN

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer the Minister to a statement he made on 15 December 1977 in which he said that a loan of $79,000 which he obtained from QBE Insurance was -

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting

Dr CASS:

– This was the sort of approach that some honourable members on the other side of the House took to members on this side of the House, and I resented that at the time too. The Minister said that he received the loan on normal commercial terms. Is it a fact that the loan to security ratio was about 83 per cent, whilst the law applying to loans from finance companies, solicitors and trustee company funds provides a maximum loan to security ratio of 66% per cent? Is it a fact that no penalty is involved for early repayment of his loan, whilst the vast majority of Australians who make an early repayment of home loans are subject to a penalty? Is it a fact that at the end of 15 years $43,750 of the principal, or 55.4 per cent of the total borrowed, will still be outstanding on his loan, whereas most Australian families repaying a home loan -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will ask his question and not put arguments.

Dr CASS:

– Is it a fact that most Australian families have to repay the principal by the end of 1 5 years of a 1 5-year loan?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-Mr Speaker, I think it will be an interesting day. I can say to the honourable gentleman what I have said before- I have nothing further to add to what I have said before which is simply this: These matters have been subject to a more exhaustive examination than, I think, the examination to which most other issues have been subject. The simple fact is this: These matters have been subject to a more exhaustive examination by persons outside of Government than I recall most other issues have been subject to examination during the whole period in which I have been in government. The statement which has been made, which has been based on the independent assessment of persons outside of this Government, is a matter of public record, and I do not intend to answer detailed questions in the House on that statement which I believe is self-explanatory.

page 1206

QUESTION

ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– Is the Minister for

Health aware of the very heavy expenses involved in orthodontic treatment in cases of cleft lip and palate for which rebates are not available under the medical benefits scheme? Is the Government doing anything to relieve this burden?

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

– Last year I established a working party in my Department to advise on a workable scheme for providing assistance towards the cost of orthodontic treatment for cleft lip and palate and related conditions. It has seemed anomalous to me and certainly to a lot of other people that whilst medical benefits have been payable in accordance with the medical benefits schedule for medical services provided or associated with treatment, they have not been available for the orthodontic services that have been also associated with the treatment. The working party feels that the matter can be resoled by an extension of the medical benefits schedule to include items associated with orthodontic treatment for cleft lip and palate conditions. Associated with this measure would be the operation of specialised clinics in some of the State hospitals. In that regard I have written to State Ministers seeking their co-operation in extending those clinics within the ambit of an extended benefits service. I expect to receive some co-operation from State Ministers in this regard.

Preliminary discussions also have been held with the Australian Dental Association and related societies. The actual implementation of the scheme that we have in mind to overcome this anomaly will, of course, be a matter for decision by the Government at the appropriate time, but I would like to give an assurance to the honourable member and the House, because I have received a tremendous amount of correspondence on the issue, that we have been working very strenuously on what is a very complex problem. There are a wide variety of services associated with the treatment of harelip and cleft palate, but the matter is in hand and I hope it may be resolved before the end of this year.

page 1206

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Howe proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is not seeking information about matters for which the Minister is responsible in this House. It is therefore out of order.

Mr Hayden:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest that this is an occasion on which you should extend the indulgence which you have often extended. The honourable member for Batman is a new member of the Parliament. He has rephrased his question. On other occasions you have allowed honourable members to continue with their questions after they have rephrased them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is true that I give some consideration to the way in which new members phrase their questions. But, apart from the aspect I have mentioned, the question is bordering on being out of order because the Standing Orders do not permit the character of an honourable member to be attacked except by substantive motion. I listened carefully to the three similar questions that were asked and I permitted them to be asked but in my judgment the question by the honourable member for Batman transgresses the Standing Orders.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest in all seriousness that you are anticipating the development of the question. You may well be justified in doing that. But the fact is that you are concluding from the nature of the question, before the point of the question has been made, that the Minister’s character is in serious question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will not canvass my ruling.

page 1206

QUESTION

LIVE SHEEP EXPORT

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the lambing percentages in several States will be affected seriously by the severe drought conditions presently prevailing? Can he advise whether any action is proposed by the Government in conjunction with the State governments to provide a fodder subsidy? Is he also aware that if such a subsidy were provided at present it would enable the farmers to withhold stock until the sheep export ban has been lifted?

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

– One of the very real reasons why growers have taken such a strong stand against the live sheep export ban is that they are most concerned, at a time when drought affects so much of Australia, that they should have a reasonable and continuing opportunity to sell those stock at a profit. The live sheep exports to the Middle East have been a vehicle by which many pastoralists have been able to lighten their stock numbers. The circumstances of the request from the Victorian Government are a reflection of the fact that in many areas stock will die in the paddocks unless feed is available or growers are able to export their live sheep. A request has been received from the Victorian Government and that request, in conjunction with other requests for modifications to the present natural disaster assistance arrangements, is presently under scrutiny.

The difficulty with the proposal is that the availability of fodder has also been affected because of the presence of aphids, which in many areas has meant that lucerne stands have been prejudiced. The availability of fodder- at least of lucerne- is a lot less than it has been in previous years. Drought fodder freight assistance is already available, but the Government is giving consideration to this other proposition. As soon as a decision has been made I expect that either the Prime Minister, in correspondence with the Premiers, or the Treasurer or I, will be making an appropriate statement.

page 1207

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: DIRECTORSHIP

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I direct a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on a matter completely different from that raised earlier. When the Minister was Treasurer was he responsible for recommending to Cabinet appointees to directorships of the Australian Industry Development Corporation? Did Cabinet in March 1 977, on the recommendation of the Minister, appoint Mr G. N. Crawford-Fish as a director of the Australian Industry Development Corporation with a fee of $5,750 a year and a daily allowance of $125? Further, was Mr CrawfordFish also appointed to a directorship of Commonwealth Hostels Ltd with a fee of $3,450 and a daily allowance of $ 1 2 5 ?

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Consistently you have ruled that when an individual is named in a question, the question should be put on notice. I suggest that this question relates to an individual and should not be answered in this form.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The ruling I have given about questions in which individuals are named is that the question should be put on notice if it involves an attack on the character of the person named. As I listened to the question I considered that the name was used for the purpose of identification, not as an attack on the person.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Is this the Mr G. N. . Crawford-Fish, a Melbourne chartered accountant, who is a director of several Lynch family companies?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I do not know what inference the honourable gentleman seeks to draw. It is quite clear that the question is simply a continuation of the smear tactics which the Opposition sought to use against me and the Government during the last election campaign. I have nothing to add to what has already been said.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Lalor asked a question which your ruled to be in order. The subject matter of the question is not the same as that in statements made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in December last. The Minister should answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order. The Minister is entitled to answer the question as he sees fit.

page 1207

QUESTION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister given consideration to the report submitted to the Victorian Government on post-secondary education, commonly referred to as the Partridge report? Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the recommendations contained in that report seeks to have all external studies in the State of Victoria concentrated in the Deakin University at the expense of courses currently conducted in provincial colleges or institutes throughout Victoria? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to this House that the Commonwealth Government will make its views known to the State Government and to the Tertiary Education Commission on its policy of decentralisation and what place the post-secondary education institutes play in provincial areas in Victoria? I instance Warrnambool, Ballarat, Bendigo and the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education at Churchill. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the significance of the Partridge report to the current inquiry being undertaken by the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training in Australia?

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

– I have no doubt that the Williams Committee will take into account the Partridge report which, as the honourable gentleman mentioned, refers only to Victorian institutions. The honourable gentleman has probably had discussions with the Gippsland Institute, just as I have had discussions with representatives of the Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education. My colleague, the Minister for Transport, also has been involved, I think, in helping to maintain and enhance facilities at the Gippsland Institute. The Partridge report was commissioned by the Victorian Goverment for the Victorian Government. In making any judgments on the matter the Victorian Government clearly had in mind that advice to the Federal Government on the development of tertiary institutions comes from a co-ordinated network of advising authorities and the Federal Government determines the funds which will be made available to the various colleges. I think it would be most unfortunate if any decisions were taken or views adopted that would lead to the loss of viability of the decentralised colleges throughout Victoria, which have had to build up their numbers and their courses, sometimes against quite strong opposition from other institutions which are entrenched and of much longer standing. This Government has supported the decentralised institutions not only in Victoria but also throughout Australia over a long period. It would want to continue to do so and would not want to take any action that might weaken those institutions. I do not think I can say anything more at this point because the formal decisions have to be made by the Victorian Government. No doubt we will be advised of them. Of course we will be making our own decisions which will be the ones that carry the financial implications for the development of colleges.

page 1208

QUESTION

MR PETER LEAKE

Mr HAYDEN:

-Does the Minister for Industry and Commerce recall being asked by the honourable member for Werriwa in this House on 25 October last year in what capacity Mr Peter Leake was known to him? Does the Minister recall saying in reply that he ‘thought’ Mr Leake had been chairman of the Minister’s electorate committee in 1967 and 1968? Does the Minister recall sending a letter to the honourable member for Werriwa later that same day to point out that his memory had been faulty by five years and that Mr Leake had been chairman of his electorate committee from October 1972 to October 1974? Why did the Minister avoid disclosing that Mr Leake was in fact known to him -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman in asking a question is not entitled to impute any motive. He can seek information; but that is all.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that he did not disclose to the honourable member for Werriwa that Mr Leake was in fact known to him as a partner in real estate speculation by the Minister’s family as recently as last year? Why did the Minister mislead this House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The last part of the honourable member’s question is out of order because it anticipates an answer, argues an issue and does not seek information. The rest of the question is in order. I call the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The Opposition must be in a desperate situation in seeking to rake over all these matters which I seem to recall were some talking point in the last election campaign. I think the results of that election speak for themselves and for the judgment which the people of this country made upon that issue. All I can say to the honourable gentleman and to other questions of this type is that I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.

page 1208

QUESTION

QUESTION TIME

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry in his capacity as Leader of the House. Does he confirm that Question Time is provided to enable Government and Opposition members to question the Executive on matters of great national interest? In view of the fact that Government members can question the Executive at Government members’ meetings, and particularly as the Opposition seems intent to ask only the most inane and bungling questions -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is asking questions about a matter for which the Leader of the House has no responsibility. The question concerns activities in a party room.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– I am coming to the part of the question that affects the Leader of the House, sir. Would the Minister consider making more time available to Parliament to discuss the great issues facing this country and for private members’ business by eliminating Question Time?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

- Mr Speaker, I have no doubt from the example given this morning that the Opposition does not value Question Time to the degree that I know members on the Government side do.

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. There is absolutely no evidence upon which the Leader of the House could base his statement. Members of the Opposition would dissociate ourselves from it completely. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs passed the Leader of the House a note.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Speaker, one of the reasons for which we so admire your performance in the chair is that you have ensured that Question Time is not abused. When the Opposition was in government we so frequently saw it using Question Time as a means of making policy statements and of avoiding statements that should properly have been made by Ministers. That is something that we religiously have not followed since we came to office.

Mr Young:

– You are not going to bury Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I commend the honourable member for his question and for the desire which he expresses- I know quite genuinely- that Question Time and all procedures of the Parliament should to the maximum be available to the members of this place for the proper conduct of their parliamentary responsibilities. I only wish that the same high idealism would prevail amongst members of the Opposition.

page 1209

QUESTION

SUGAR MILLS IN NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources and refers to the fact that there are 700 cane growers in Northern New South Wales and to the fact that CSR Limited proposes to dispose of the three sugar mills in that area. Is it a fact that CSR finds these mills lacking in viability and is anxious to capitalise its losses by selling the mills for $7m? Is it a fact that the Government has agreed to assist CSR by agreeing to advance to the growers $3. 5m at 12 per cent interest? If this is the position, can the Minister explain how the growers would be expected to make mills viable when CSR has decided to leave the area? Is it a fact that for some years negotiations have been going on in secret and the rank and file of the growers know nothing about the transactions? Will the Minister indicate to the House that he supports the viability of the growers in the area and the retention of the mills? What action does the Government propose to take to assist the growers?

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

– I am well aware of this issue, as I have been closely associated with the New South Wales canegrowers’ executives who have been involved in the discussions and negotiations regarding the transfer of ownership of the mills from CSR Limited to a prospective cooperative arrangement. The reasons why CSR might be selling the mills is not something which I should canvass here; that is a matter for its own decision. But it is a matter of great concern to the producers of New South Wales who depend upon these mills for their livelihood. It is important that these mills do continue in existence and do remain viable operations because the whole welfare and, indeed, the economy of quite a section of that part of the State depends upon the continuing operations of the New South Wales sugar industry.

I point out that the negotiations and discussions which have been taking place have also been undertaken under the umbrella of the New South Wales Government, which has the prime responsibility for the agricultural activity in the area. I commend the New South Wales Government for the way in which it has been trying to bring about a harmonious settlement to this dispute, which has caused so much uncertainty and doubt for a considerable period of time. I believe that the New South Wales Government has made a request to the Commonwealth Government. This request is being handled by the Minister for Primary Industry. I think I am right in saying that a submission relating to this matter is to be received by the Commonwealth Government for consideration.

page 1209

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer and concerns his statement in the House earlier this year that: . . the Government rejects the notion that the Australian economy is in any kind of recession.

I refer also to the Treasurer’s more recent statement made at the Financial Review luncheon that:

  1. . our basic economic performance is steadily improving.

Does the Treasurer still adhere to those statements, despite the recent release of statistics showing almost half a million people unemployed and a decline in real gross non-farm product by 1.3 per cent in the December quarter and by 0.6 per cent in the first six months of this financial year? In view of these disastrous statistics and his own admission that the Budget deficit will be several hundred million dollars above its budgeted level, does the Treasurer agree with the claim by the Minister for Finance yesterday that the Budget estimates will be largely on target for this financial year?

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

– I most certainly do adhere to the statement I made earlier this year rejecting the notion that this country was in any kind of economic recession. I also affirm the statements that I made. The honourable gentleman of course, as one would expect given his shadow ministerial responsibilities in Opposition, has selectively chosen some of the economic indicators. If he had read my speech to the Australian Financial Review luncheon he would have found that not only did I make the statement that he mentioned but also that I made an acknowledgment that there are certain indicators that are less than satisfactory. At no stage since in my present ministerial responsibilities have I denied that there are some adverse indicators so far as the Australian economy is concerned.

If the honourable member looks at the progress which has been achieved in reducing our rate of inflation and if he looks below the surface of the December quarter national accounts- I am sure that the honourable gentleman has done that- he will find that they confirm a very strong growth both in government and private consumption. As somebody who has a better than average knowledge of statistics, he would know that one of the reasons the gross domestic product factor in the December national accounts was subdued was the very large stock run-down. When those accounts were released I acknowledged that they were disappointing. Of course they are disappointing, but one has to look below the surface. To ascribe to them a sort of economic debacle as the honourable gentleman tries to do is to misinform this House completely. Of course there are a number of unsatisfactory indicators. On the other hand there are a much greater number of very satisfactory indicators such as the recent statistics on computer sales which were released yesterday.

The honourable gentleman is aware that some other statistics will be coming out today. I will not make any comment on them, for reasons which the honourable member will understand. I invite him to look at them, and I invite him to look again at the capital investment figures across the whole of the spectrum for the second half of last year. So what I said before on two occasions I say again: Although there are some unsatisfactory indicators suggestions from the

Opposition and from other parts of the community that this country is in some kind of economic recession are absolute nonsense and counterproductive to our future economic interests.

page 1210

QUESTION

LAUNCESTON GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is it true that the Tasmanian State Government has taken a conscious decision to refuse a Commonwealth grant of $2m for the Launceston General Hospital building project in this financial year? Is the Minister aware that the State Minister for Health has claimed that further funding for the hospital is in no way jeopardised by this decision since the Commonwealth is prepared to match funding for the Launceston General Hospital irrespective of what price escalation may occur as a result of this delay and subsequent delays on the part of the State Government? What is the Commonwealth’s attitude to the statement made by the State Minister for Health?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– My reaction to the statement by the State Minister for Health is one of astonishment because under the arrangement that I had with the former State Minister for Health an amount of $ 10.92m was to be allocated for stage one of the Launceston General Hospital. We appropriated an amount of $5. 46m in this financial year. I now understand that Tasmania will allocate only $3. 75m, which is $1.71m less than it had agreed to allocate. It needs to know that the unexpended portion of the 1977-78 appropriation will not be carried forward into the next financial year. What this has served to do, of course, under the hospitals development program- a program that we have to assist the States with hospital development- is to deny other States $ 1.71m because Tasmania has not lived up to its obligation under an agreement between its Minister for Health and me. I am sending officers to Tasmania next week to have discussions on this matter in order to find out precisely what the Tasmanian Government intends to do next year. If it continues to break understandings like this we may have to review the arrangement.

page 1210

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Finance: Is it a fact that civilian employment declined by 1.2 per cent in the three months to February 1 978? Does the Minister still believe that the Budget forecast of growth in employment is actually occuring? What rate of employment growth is the target of the present Government? Will the Government increase capital expenditure grants to the States commensurate with their expressed desires for achieving employment growth?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The figures for the last part of last year and the first months of this year show a deterioration in employment which, of course, was expected and which, I hope, is understood by everybody here. No doubt the honourable member’s question is based upon what I said yesterday. I invite him to read what I said yesterday when I was referring to the estimates provided in last year’s Budget Papers by the previous Treasurer in which he indicated the targets for the growth of the economy and employment. I say to the honourable member for Cunningham and other members of the Opposition that they are falling into the very serious trap of looking at figures ibr a particular quarter or a particular time of the year and hoping that by repeating those figures they will somehow create a greater feeling of gloom and despondency about the economy.

I indicate to the honourable member for Cunningham that when I talk about a Budget I refer to the growth over a year and that cannot be assessed until after the year is over. I am told that figures on unemployment will come out later today. I suggest that they will give a sign of what has been occurring as we move towards the end of the financial year, as I indicated yesterday. I say to the honourable member that he should not be too impatient. He will fall into a trap if he takes a selective set of figures based on a few months and tries to build a story over a whole financial year on them. The last matter as to whether the Government is considering capital expenditure is not a matter on which I shall comment. If the honourable member wishes to know about that he should ask the Treasurer.

page 1211

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister would be aware of the great concern that is being expressed in the sugar industries of Queensland and northern New South Wales about the domestic price increase in sugar. Can he tell me when such a decision will be made by Cabinet?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– The sugar industry has had a very difficult time insofar as the price increases granted by this Government have largely helped the millers and the refiners- perhaps the refiners in particular- but the cane growers have received very little benefit. As my colleague the Minister for Trade and Resources remarked in this House the other day, the International Sugar Agreement has been a factor towards stabilising international prices but generally the world prices for raw sugar are significantly below the levels that prevailed only a few years ago. Because of the low domestic price and the low export price, the position in many cane growing areas is becoming quite acute. It was in that circumstance that we dealt as expeditiously as possible with a request from the sugar industry for an increase in domestic sugar prices.

However, there were a number of areas where I am afraid that the original submission was quite deficient. There was no indication of profitability, no indication of the cost factors affecting different areas of the industry- the raw sugar area, the millers and the refineries. For that reason we found it necessary to try to get as much information as was available. To a large degree that information has been provided, but there are still quite a number of areas where information is inadequate in relation to the normal assessment that would be made were the matter to be considered by the Prices Justification Tribunal, for example, or some other open forum. The Government has before it at the moment some recommendations from me following the scrutiny of the sugar industry, and I expect that a decision will be taken fairly shortly, possibly next week.

page 1211

QUESTION

BUDGET OUTLAYS: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr HAYDEN:

– The Minister for Finance will recall an answer that he gave to a question on 4 April in which he referred to what he termed substantial changes in the pattern of Budget outlays. Is the Minister aware that the share of capital outlays in the Budget has fallen from 20. 5 per cent in 1975-76- the same proportion as 10 years ago- to only 13.5 per cent for 1977-78? Further, is the Minister aware that the public sector accounts for 10 per cent of dwelling completions and about two-thirds of expenditure on nonresidential building and construction? Will the Minister agree that these savage cutbacks in the share of capital to total Budget outlays are directly responsible for depressing the state of the building and construction industry and contributing to the high levels of unemployment in that industry?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-In regard to the question of Budget outlays, I took the opportunity to indicate to the House in answer to a question the tremendous change in the pattern of what has happened in Australia over the last 10 years. I referred particularly to the acceleration of those changes in the three years from 1973 to 1975 inclusive. If one looks at what has happened over that period of 10 years, there was an extraordinary increase from 1 7 per cent to over 27 per cent in social welfare expenditure, health expenditure almost doubled, and education expenditure trebled. However, in regard to education we have to allow for the fact that there has been a transfer of responsibilities from the State to the Federal area so that, in themselves, those stark figures do not reflect completely the position with regard to education. If one looks at reimbursements to the States, which are of the order of 20 per cent or more, of course there has been a reduction in assistance to industry and capital works.

The Leader of the Opposition referred particularly to the building industry and talked about the depressed state of the economy. The Leader of the Opposition loves to talk about the depressed state of the economy. He will take any opportunity, any set of figures, any comment by anybody, to try to continue the story of gloom and despair that he has been telling ever since he went into Opposition. I do not know why he does not cheer up a little. Let us look at the building industry. Nobody would deny the significance of the building industry to the Australian economy; nobody would deny its significance to employment, but it is about time that the Leader of the Opposition and the industry started to realise that the over-expansion of the industry in 1976 created problems for the industry. When more homes are provided than the market requires, of course there has to be a period of adjustment. We are going through a period of adjustment.

For the benefit of the Opposition, let me reinforce that point. The Opposition is falling into the error that it fell into when in government. It is too impatient; it will not wait until the true facts are known. The underlying forces within the economy demonstrate very clearly that there are some strong points, and it will not be too long in the future before the sorts of questions that the Leader of the Opposition asks, which are designed to depress further the Australian economy, will be seen for what they are- questions of propaganda that cannot be supported by facts.

page 1212

TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · Chisholm · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Tertiary Education Commission for the 1979-81 triennium, volume I, recommendations and guidelines, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education relating to the report

page 1212

DOCUMENTS TABLED IN QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENT: PUBLICATION

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present copies of documents tabled in the Queensland Parliament by the Honourable L. R. Edwards M.L.A. on Tuesday, 4 April 1978. Due to the limited number available at this time, copies have been placed in the Table Office. Additional copies will be made available for circulation to all honourable members towards the end of next week. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion.

Leave granted.

Mr HUNT:

– I move:

That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of papers relating to Mr Milan Brych tabled by the Minister for Health this day.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I oppose the motion on this basis: The papers which have been tabled and which it is now proposed should be printed and published by this Parliament as I understand it comprise 120 pages. They were tabled in the Queensland Parliament. The Premier of Queensland brought Mr Milan Brych to Brisbane. The only reason the Federal Parliament has been asked to publish the papers is that there was then an argument between the Government parties inside the Queensland Cabinet. The Queensland Minister for Health has tabled the papers in the Queensland Parliament. He cannot obtain permission to publish them in Queensland. Why should the Commonwealth pay for this? It is the Premier of that State who has got us into this trouble. The supporters of the Premier now say that he needs psychiatric treatment. I reached that conclusion some time ago.

If the Queensland Government wants to publish those papers, by all means let the Queensland Government do so. But why should we give more publicity to this man who is a charlatan and who is accepted to be a charlatan. Why should we have to pay for this action? The cost involved in printing a booklet on this matter must be quite significant. We are getting ourselves involved in an argument between groups of Ministers in the Queensland Government. Surely we should not take sides in that argument or, if we do take sides, surely the Commonwealth Government should not have to pay for this printing. Why should the taxpayers of Australia become involved in this charade? We have already had the spectacle of Sir Reginald Ansett supplying aircraft to fly voters back from New

Zealand at a cost of $20 a head to vote for the present Premier so Mr Milan Brych can continue his work on the Cook Islands and no doubt our tax payers are paying for this. The position is becoming quite ridiculous. We are dealing with people who generally are affected with a terminal carcinoma of some kind. These people are being hoodwinked- at least some of them areinto going to the Cook Islands. But surely we should not give publicity to this man so that more people will become involved in the argument.

The whole point is that only one prominent person, the Premier of Queensland, is keen to start this man off in Australia. The Premier wants to open a clinic for him. He has plenty of money. We have seen in the Press today and yesterday that he is able to raise significant amounts of money personally, quite apart from money which might be provided by the Government. If he has that sort of money let him start a clinic in Queensland, and if he can get registered medical practitioners to work -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Basically, I oppose the proposition that this House should authorise the expenditure of money because the Queensland Cabinet cannot agree to publish the documents which were tabled in the Queensland Parliament. Is it for reasons of publicity? Is it a question of privilege? Why are we asked to support the publication of the documents?

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

– I think it is necessary that I explain that the motion is not for the printing of the paper. Therefore there is no cost associated with the passage of this motion through the House.

Dr Klugman:

– You say the information will be available to us next week.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-It will be published, but it will be roneoed as distinct from being printed as a parliamentary paper. As the honourable gentleman would know, if a document is printed as a parliamentary paper it is put in one of the bound blue series and is then available to people as a result of a printing procedure which is significantly more expensive than the procedure involved as a result of the passage of this motion. This motion authorises publication of the paper. It does not involve printing of the paper and is significantly without cost to the Commonwealth.

Dr Klugman:

-What is the benefit?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– It gives parliamentary privilege to the contents of the document.

Dr Klugman:

– It has already received parliamentary privilege in Queensland.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Speaker, through you, could I explain the matter further?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the House may proceed.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The purpose of this motion is that because we as individuals do not necessarily accord with all that is contained within the paper, it is necessary for privilege to be given to the documents so that they can be examined and proper public scrutiny given to them. We are not in a position in which we are verifying the allegations made, but because of the character of the assertions contained in the documents, we believe the public should have the benefit of being able to read them and consider them, and for the members of this Parliament to deliberate upon them. The only way by which this can be achieved is by ensuring that parliamentary privilege pertains to them. The purpose of this motion is that parliamentary privilege will prevail without the necessary expense of having the documents printed.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I am concerned about the motion and the methods by which documents are to be given parliamentary privilege. This occurred a couple of years ago in the Senate when statements which were completely without foundation were given parliamentary privilege. Therefore, persons who may or may not have been named in those documents were exonerated in regard to the publishing of libel in relation to the statements they made. If the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) wishes to give the documents parliamentary privilege he should go through the whole exercise of having the paper printed. I do not think he ought to use this device. I am concerned about the use of parliamentary privilege to protect statements which are not made in this House and which are not at this stage relevant to the proceedings of this House. I do not object to public information or the provision of public information. If the Leader of the House wishes to give public information I think he ought to go through the processes which normally take place of publishing the information in report form, even if it is only a report on the conduct of Dr Brych, and making it a procedure of this Parliament.

If I write a book in which I slander every person in Australia and come into this House and say that I think the slander is public information, should I be entitled to the protection of parliamentary privilege? I think that is really what it is all about. It is an important issue, but I think we are misusing the forms of this House in seeking parliamentary privilege to cover those documents. If the Leader of the House wants to table them and move that they be printed, that is within his power. To use a device to give them parliamentary privilege is, I think, a misuse of the forms of the House.

Dr Klugman:

- Mr Speaker, may I seek your guidance?

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Prospect wishes to ask a question, I will permit that before I call the honourable member for Werriwa.

Dr Klugman:

-I seek a clear indication on the position of the informaton contained in the papers tabled in the Queensland Parliament by the Queensland Minister for Health. As far as I know, extracts from them have been published in all the newspapers. Are they not privileged?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not like to intrude into the debate. Perhaps I can add something by way of clarification. I think the concern here is that if papers are tabled and any member of this chamber then sent any of the papers or any part of the papers to any other person, the member may find himself in the position that he is publishing a slander because he would not have any protection of parliamentary privilege. I think the purpose of the motion is to provide parliamentary privilege protection to a member of this House who feels it necessary to provide any of those papers to any constitutent.

Dr Klugman:

– What about what has happened in Queensland? Does that not already provide privilege?

Mr SPEAKER:

-It would not provide any privilege to any member of this House.

Mr E G WHITLAM:
Werriwa

– Apropos of what you have just said, Mr Speaker, am I to understand that if these papers were printed by the order of the Queensland Parliament the only persons who would be privileged in giving copies of them to any persons would be members of the Queensland Parliament? Am I to understand that members of this Parliament or members of the public would not be privileged if they were to secure copies of these documents if they were printed by order of the Queensland Parliament? Is that right?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I would not care to answer that question because I am not responsible for the extent of privilege of some matter of the Queensland Parliament. I am merely trying to inform the House of my understanding of the purpose of the motion. Let me make it clear. This is a matter of great notoriety. No doubt members of parliament have received correspondence on it from constituents and would wish to respond to that by using whatever material is available to them. I think the fear that is entertained by the Minister for Health is that a member of parliament, in serving the interests of his constituent by providing him with information that is available to the member himself, may be rendering himself liable to an action for libel. That would mean that the material that is available would not be distributed by the member. I think that is the purpose of the motion. As I understand it, the Minister can table a paper at any time but if somebody chose to distribute the paper that he tabled it would not have parliamentary privilege. The purpose is to give it parliamentary privilege.

Mr E G WHITLAM:

– I certainly understand the point that it is desired that these papers, which were tabled in the Queensland Parliament, should be privileged. There is a great deal of public interest in this matter. Members of parliament receive correspondence and they want to be able to answer the correspondence with impunity. They will have that impunity if the documents become a parliamentary paper. Surely the whole issue is this: Does that privilege not attach to these documents which were tabled in the Queensland Parliament if the Queensland Parliament orders them to be printed? I overlook the issue of whether there is to be a costly form of printing by putting them in type and book form or whether there will be a comparatively inexpensive form of printing, just by issuing one roneoed copy which anybody is then free to copy in other forms of any kind. There is the very real fear that if documents which are tabled in any parliament in Australia are then to be printed by the order of any other house of parliament in Australia there can be no limit to the damage that can be done.

An instance has just been given of documents being tabled in the Senate a couple of years ago about members of this House. The members of this House had no remedy at all. They could not be heard. Anybody getting hold of the Senate documents could then make what use he wished of those documents. If a Minister seeks to make a statement, if any member can read a document into Hansard or if the House allows any document to be incorporated in Hansard, it can be privileged, but at least there is some discipline over what Ministers say in statements, what documents are incorporated in Hansard or what material can be read by an honourable member making a speech. Less than two and a half years ago there was a special session of the

Queensland Parliament and things were said then under privilege about people engaged in a federal election campaign. Nothing could be done about that. It was a gross abuse of parliamentary privilege.

We are now talking about something being tabled in the Queensland Parliament. If the Queensland Parliament seeks to have that document printed there is nothing that anybody else can do about it- a member of parliament, a member of the public, a person in Australia or a person outside Australia. What is tabled in the Queensland Parliament and printed by order of the Parliament would then be completely privileged. That is the proper place for the decision to be taken. No doubt the Minister has formed a view, and I would not disagree with the view from what I have read or heard about the matter, that Mr Brych is a Cagliostro. If the Minister chooses to take the responsibility of making a ministerial statement on Mr Brych then he is entitled to do so. I think he would be given leave to make that statement. If he wanted then to read any documents he could. If he were to table documents related to a statement that he made as a Minister, I do not suppose there would be any objection to having those documents printed. The objectionable thing, surely, is in this House ordering the printing of documents which are tabled in another parliament. This is not just a technical objection. It is not a trivial matter. It can have very real implications. We know how often in this Parliament questions are asked about what happens in other State parliaments. Certainly things are said in State parliaments about what happens in this Parliament. I can even remember the situation arising of Governors being given speeches criticising the Federal Government.

The mischief has gone far enough. Why is it that the Minister- a very fine Minister from what I have seen of him- has made a statement and has tabled documents in the Queensland Parliament, and the normal process of having those documents printed by the order of the Queensland Parliament has not been carried out? I believe that this is without precedent. I believe that it would be a very dangerous precedent to set. We should remember that if we in this House order the printing of documents which have been tabled in the Queensland Parliament and which, for reasons that have been suggested, the Queensland Parliament will not order to be printed, then the same thing can be done about any member of this Parliament. Any member of this Parliament can then table a document and then any other parliament can have it printed. It can give privilege to something which may be completely unfounded and completely defamatory. I believe that this matter ought to be considered further.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I would be grateful if, for the protection of honourable members, you could make further inquiries into this matter and then give a ruling. There are matters other than the Brych report and the documents which have been tabled in the Queensland Parliament that ought to be taken into consideration. For example, in the last couple of weeks the report of Sir Gregory Gowans, Q.C., on the dealings of the Victorian Housing Commission has been tabled in the Victorian Parliament. Clearly, that is a privileged document so far as members of the Victorian Parliament are concerned. If I, as a Victorian member of the House of Representatives, received an inquiry from somebody in Tasmania or Queensland for information about the report and I then send a copy of the Gowans report, does that mean that I am not covered by the privilege which would have been attached to me when I was the member for Melbourne in the Victorian Parliament? I think the extent to which there is reciprocity or full faith and credit as it were about the privilege attaching to a document tabled in another Parliament needs to be clarified. It is a very important matter. It is not a matter that had occurred to me before. Perhaps it had not occurred to many other members. It needs to be clarified and I would be grateful if, perhaps in the next week or two, you, Mr Speaker, could give a ruling on the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I would be unwilling to give a legal opinion, if that is what the honourable gentleman means. I would not want to make a statement upon which he or any other member might rely to be free to do as he wished, impervious to civil action brought by somebody. The honourable member will have to make his own legal judgment on that. I appreciate the point on which the honourable member is seeking information. I will do what I can to provide him with the information. I am bound to say that I have under request at this time a legal opinion from the Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department which relates to matters of this kind. I have not yet received his reply. He may be as reluctant as I to give a legal opinion.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I join in this discussion because I want to make a very personal point. I agree with the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in his estimate of Mr Brych. Mr Brych is deceiving a lot of people and is tearing a lot of families apart in this country. He is probably bankrupting a number of people. So it is important that the information should get out somehow. I am now confused about the actual situation of privilege. I want to get my hands on the document and distribute it to the dozens of people who write to me asking for advice. I intend to do this even if it means that I end up in gaol.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– In view of what the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) has said I wish to comment on this matter. I appreciate the views put to the House by the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam). I certainly did not appreciate how potentially dangerous this precedent could be if it is followed. I ask the Minister- I say with thorough genuineness that he has always behaved as an eminently reasonable person in this House- to defer action on this matter and to consider it further with his colleagues because there will be no end to the sorts of things which can be done once practices of this type are initiated. For instance, it would not be very difficult for an Opposition to produce a document which may be thoroughly spurious and defamatory, to seek to have it incorporated in Hansard or tabled so as to obtain parliamentary privilege, to be thwarted in that attempt and then to arrange for the document to be presented in a State Parliament where there was a favourable majority. What I am putting to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) is that I do not believe he has had enough time to consider carefully the points raised by the honourable member for Werriwa. I confess that I did not feel a great sense of mission or concern about this matter when it was initially raised here until I heard the points cogently put by the honourable member for Werriwa. I ask the Minister, who is a man clearly reasonable in these matters, not to proceed with the matter now but to consult his colleagues and consider the matter further. Then, if he really feels determined to proceed with it, he can come back to the House and do so. I am terrified at the sorts of circumstances which could develop from this initiative. We could all live to regret this sort of thing, even within the term of this Parliament. We all know the ploys that some people can use in their efforts to establish a point which has no substance in fact so as to discredit a person. There are many people who do that; it does happen sometimes. I am terrified of the possibilities which could flow from this initiative in the light of the points that have been cogently put by the honourable member for Werriwa.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

– I think the issue raised by the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam) has to be considered in the light of the right of members of this House to debate any issue in the national interest. Anything he said must not be taken to inhibit proper debate in this place where this Parliament has proper constitutional power to debate a matter. I do not think he is questioning the constitutional power of this House to deal with matters of this sort. I refer to Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice. On page 173 he refers to breaches of privilege and contempts. He refers to complaints against members or officers in either House; that is the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The concluding paragraph states:

When a member, officer, or servant of either House has been guilty of any offence either against the other House or against its members, which would be punishable by the latter if committed by one of its own members, officers, or servants, it is the duty of the House to which such offender belongs, upon being apprised of the fact, to take proper measures to inquire into and punish the offence in a proper manner.

Arguing by analogy, I believe it is the duty of the House to make up its mind as to what it will do in the public interest in debating matters or considering questions of privilege relating to members of this House, acting along the lines referred to earlier by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass).

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I support the remarks made by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) on this matter, but unlike the honourable member for Prospect and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) I have no clear view on the efficacy of the supposed cures of Mr Brych. As a member of the public I am more or less dependent on the information that comes out. It seems to me that there has been ample time for the facts of this matter to be disseminated in a proper and orderly way within the powers of the Parliament had it been deemed necessary to do so by the Minister responsible. It has yet to be determined for the public whether Mr Brych has a cure. I recognise the great agony that is occurring in the community because of the confusion on the whole subject. It seems to me rather incongruous that when this matter was raised by the Minister responsible in the Queensland Parliament, Dr Edwards, the Government of that State and the Minister’s own colleagues did not see fit to carry out the process that the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) is now suggesting. Not understanding the medical side of what is involved in Mr Brych ‘s alleged cure, I am not satisfied that there is a clear case one way or another because of the dispute in the Queensland Parliament. It seems terribly dangerous that where a sovereign government cannot itself resolve what the correct process ought to be in respect of the reports and information, we, in another parliament, should automatically pick up the matter in dispute from that sovereign government and endorse it, without having seen any of the documents- in this case, contained in the papers that the Minister for Health seeks to authorise to be publishedand without having been told by the Minister anything about the purpose for which he seeks the dissemination of the material. I rather suspect that many of the documents that the Minister seeks to have published are of government origin from another country, probably New Zealand. Therefore, ought not those documents if they emanated from departments of the Government of New Zealand and New Zealand health authorities have privilege or status in themselves? It seems to me that we are overdoing the exercise in having to give privilege of this Parliament to documents from the New Zealand Government and New Zealand health authorities. Ought not those documents- one would expect that they would comprise the majority of the papers before the Queensland Minister- if it is in the public interest to disseminate them, be disseminated automatically without having to be brought in here?

I conclude by saying that, as has been expressed by previous speakers from this side, I see a terrible danger in what would be in effect using this Parliament to rubber-stamp with privilege a batch of papers to which the sovereign government in which this matter has originated, the Queensland State Government, has not seen fit to give privilege. I strongly urge that there be consultation between the Commonwealth Minister and the Queensland Government to resolve this matter and that the Minister report back to this Parliament.

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

– in reply- The last comment of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) really highlights the futility and the stupidity of his argument. This is a matter of great public concern and the exposure of the facts should not be dependent on one Minister or one member of this Parliament conferring with a Minister of another Parliament. I respect the views of honourable members and I understand the reasons for their concern, but I and other members on this side of the Parliament have given serious consideration to what is the right and proper course to ensure that the public is not denied essential knowledge and that the members of this Parliament are not denied privilege so that they may act in the public interest. The matter of whether the Queensland Parliament should print a document is its prerogative. However, this Parliament has a real prerogative to make its own decisions in the public interest. Honourable members of this Parliament are involved in this issue in a real public sense. Indeed, the Commonwealth Government is involved because of its responsibilities for immigration and entry laws, for Commonwealth benefits that are paid for medical services and for general public health.

There is a need for public knowledge on this issue. The public has the right to know the facts and the views that have been put by eminent people. This Brych issue is not a three day wonder; it has been raging as an issue in the minds of many people for many many months and there is much confusion, anguish and concern. It is a very emotional issue; people can fall victim of their concern should any of their loved ones be involved or have cancer. I feel that this Parliament has a responsibility to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that the public is warned, that it has the facts, and that health writers, medical writers, journalists and the media have full and proper uninhibited access to what information is available to me and to what information is available to the Queensland Parliament. I think that to deny proper access to that information through a technical argument which in any event I do not think can be sustained would be inappropriate. I shall quote from Parliamentary Practice by Erskine May in respect of the prerogatives of a House of Parliament. Page 173 states:

The leading principle which appears to prevade all the proceedings between the Houses of Parliament is that there shall subsist a perfect equality between them, and that they shall be, in every respect, totally independent one of the other. Hence, it is that neither House can claim, much less exercise, any authority over a member of the other. Neither House of Parliament can take upon itself to punish any breach of privilege or contempt offered to it by any member of the other House.

I think that quote is extremely relevant.

Dr Klugman:

-I trust you meant irrelevant.

Mr HUNT:

-I said ‘relevant’. I think it is extremely relevant to the issue and to some of the arguments that have been advanced as to why we should not proceed at this time. I believe that the Parliament has a responsibility to the Australian people because many people are struggling with their decision on this issue as to whether they should either support or attend the clinic that has been set up by this man in the Cook Islands.

Mr MORRIS (Shortland)-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MORRIS:

-Yes. I think the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) misunderstood my closing words when I referred to a resolution of the issue. What I referred to was a resolution of the issue of how privilege could be attached to the documents and suggested that that matter be discussed by him and the Queensland Minister for Health.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1218

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr BLEWETT:

– I do, Mr Speaker. The misrepresentation occurs on page 1127 of yesterday’s Hansard, that is, of 6 April 1978. During a speech by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), he kindly referred me to an article in the London Financial Times. I am then alleged to have interjected:

I will come round to your office to get it.

The right honourable member for Lowe is then alleged to have replied:

Please do. The honourable member has been promising to come round to my office for a long time for a drink.

I would like to say that though I have a great respect for the right honourable member for Lowe, I have not been promising for either a short or a long time to go round to his room for a drink. Indeed, I think the interjection and the promise related to my esteemed colleague, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). I hope that in the final edition of Hansard this passage of arms can be corrected.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Yes, sir, I do. Earlier I sought the leave of the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) to make a statement but I was advised that it would be a far more satisfactory way to present this matter as a personal explanation. The Nation Review of this week presented a story in relation to the Queensland redistribution with the headline ‘Cameron Loses Again’. I shall refer now to a story on page 2 of today’s Brisbane Courier-Mail, a section of which states: . . a small but powerful group may move to undercut Liberal MP Mr Don Cameron in his south-east Queensland seat of Fadden.

These reports tend to give a very real impression that the member for Fadden is no longer capable of arriving at a rational conclusion. As a representative of the people I have no alternative but to use this Parliament today to present the facts as they are in relation to the redistribution. I assure all honourable members that I do not do this with a sense of relish. However, my judgment is being seriously questioned. I do not do this in anger, but rather with a deep appreciation of the privilege afforded me in this place and with a degree of anguish that only those people who have been in this position would really understand.

A resume of what I shall relate is that a series of events has taken place. This has driven me on in the belief that all is not well. Much must be related to allow others to reach their own conclusions. Because of the time factor, I shall withhold events of minor consequence and shall replace names with a code to avoid implicating those people whose names do not really need to be stated. Initally, I state my unshakeable belief that the system of redistribution as designated under the Commonwealth Electoral Act is so designed to ensure as honest and as fair a redistribution as possible. No electoral Act can completely compensate for the frailties of mankindbias, dishonesty, et cetera- but we try to avoid them and woe betide he or she who is caught fiddling the system.

Some assertions I shall make cannot be proved and might be subject to denial. I can only assure the House that I shall make no claim unless its truth is thickly veneered with vivid recollection. Actual dates may be omitted because their significance was not apparent in the early stages. Remember, I have spoken inside and outside this chamber on redistribution, so no man can cast the accusation that I am a coward using the highest form of protection that can be afforded in this land.

To give the House a recollection of the actual machinery dates of the Queensland redistribution, I supply the following information: On 19 April, the Commissioners were appointed; on 20 April, the Ministerial announcement was made in the Senate; on 26 April, the advertisement appeared in the Government Gazette; 26 May was the closing date for submissions; 9 June was the closing date for comments on submissions; on 10 August, the Commissioners’ proposal was published; 9 September was the closing date for objections; and, on 26 September 1977, the final report of the Commissioners was presented. This is all important, as will become apparent.

Every honourable member in this place was very much aware for some time prior to the commencement of the redistribution that there had to be a redistribution of seats in the Australian electorate. To present this explanation chronologically, I inform the House of a conversation with a very senior Queenslander in this place early last year. He informed me that he had been subjected to an approach in regard to Queensland’s third Commissioner. He told me that he was ‘not going to have a bar of them having their fingers in the redistribution’. No honourable member needs to be reminded how sensitive a subject this is to members of the House of Representatives. I was to be assured in January this year, and I accept the assurance, that the appointment of the third Commissioner was not the whim of one man but was a Cabinet decision. Nevertheless, this man’s comment left the indelible impression upon me that he was a power broker as far as the redistribution was concerned.

It was perhaps during June and most definitely at the latest early July that I heard how the Commissioners allegedly had been informed that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) was dispensable in this redistribution. Yes, this information was secondhand, but the honourable member for Bowman can testify to the truth that at least this claim was strongly stated and that the information had come from the Commission. I paid only a little attention to the claim because I considered it almost inconceivable that a Commission could approach its task in such a manner. Nevertheless the information was fairly well known.

In August, after the House resumed for the Budget session, I informed the senior Queenslander that it was being alleged that he had been ‘out to get’ David Jull. I clearly recall this senior Queenslander ‘s response as he raised his right eyebrow and said that he had heard these allegations himself and was rather surprised because he had always believed that Queensland members were ‘a fairly happy group’. I invite honourable members to recall the size of the report entitled ‘Copies of the suggestions, comments or objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners for Queensland’. They will remember that the thickest report for any State lodged with any Distribution Commissioners came from our State.

One minute after the commencement of 10 August I learned that Cameron and my old seat of Griffith would be parted because of the action of the ‘three men with a pen’. I accepted it at that time but, at a time of understandable disappointment, I could not help but re-hear the words ‘not going to have a bar of them having their fingers in this redistribution’. My submission against the Commissioners ‘ proposals, as contained in page 276 of the report, was in this time of stress handed to the secretary of the person who appeared to swing so much power. I wanted him to know my objections in detail. I have no knowledge whatsoever of his drawing this to the attention of the Commissioners and I make no claim that he contravened section 22 of the Act by communicating to the Commissioners the senseless destruction they had rendered, politically speaking, in my then seat of Griffith.

By early August reports were rife that one of the Commissioners had been so disenchanted with the way the redistribution had been carried out that for two days he refused to sign the report. In early October, in the presence of almost all, if not all, Queensland Liberals gathered at a meeting in this House, the senior Queenslander, after I raised the matter of the Commissioner’s reluctance, snapped back saying: ‘But he signed the final report, didn’t he?’ Errors can be made, but the impression gained by some was that he knew of this. In my mind, he confirmed a suspicion that he, a senior Queenslander, had a firm pipeline to the Commission.

My suspicions had been mightily aroused when the final maps came out on 26 September. On 26 August this person attended a meeting in Brisbane and claimed that another prominent Queenslander, whose name will be left completely unspoken because there is no point in bringing it in, had rung him and for political reasons had suggested that the name of Mcpherson should go back to a seat which had been named ‘Gold Coast’ when the first maps came out on 10 August. The meeting agreed that the name ‘McPherson’ was the proper name for what had been called ‘Gold Coast’ and that it would suggest that the seat I now hold, which had originally been called ‘McPherson’ should be called ‘Fadden’. It was left to Parliament to make this decision because it was in accordance with the Fox report of 1969, Parliamentary Paper No. 35. Not one suggestion, comment or objection calling for a change of names is contained in the Commissioners’ report. Yet it happened. The potential political bomb, which Queenslanders would understand, was defused. At this point of time I was unable actually to prove that anyone had contact with the Commission, but my deep-rooted scepticism will be understood.

Sometime in October, after the final maps came out, I commenced inquiries into the background of the Commissioners. I learnt that the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in Queensland was a former Divisional Returning Officer for the seat of McPherson. The following is in no way- I repeat, in no way- meant to implicate the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). I checked with that Minister’s office to find more background on Mr Coleman, the Queensland Electoral Officer and the Chief Commissioner. Two days after my inquiry I was told by the Minister’s secretary to check with a certain Queenslander because he had recommended Mr Coleman’s appointment following the retirement of Queensland’s previous Chief Electoral Officer. That such a recommendation was made is not extraordinary because governments of all political persuasions are faced with this task. However, it did prove a definite link existed between this senior Queenslander and Mr Coleman in the past and that he regarded Mr Coleman highly.

At the end of October and in early November, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and I made various speeches highlighting an apprehension as to the impartiality and honesty of the Queensland redistribution. No one can condemn us for suspecting all was not right in the State of Denmark. Mr Speaker, on 30 October 1977, at 1 p.m., I had further cause for grave disquiet. A senior contender for the Liberal Party’s nomination for the seat I now hold, whom I shall describe as Mr X, told me how at the request of ‘a Minister’ he had prepared a map of what Queensland’s new and nineteenth seat should be and how, as he said, it came out exactly as I suggested’. He explained to me how he had included a large rural area to discourage anyone from the city from nominating. Some 10 days later in a conversation in my home he amended this claim to the effect that he had not included the Boonah subdivision in his submission because, to quote him, ‘it was deadly’. I understood what he meant, following the National Party’s high vote in that area. I ask for permission of the House to incorporate in Hansard a transcript of that conversation. It serves to verify that an earlier conversation did take place.

Leave granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before the honourable gentleman proceeds, I would like the document identified.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-This is the one.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to quote from it at all?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-No. I am just incorporating it to verify that a certain event did take place.

The document read as follows-

Don Cameron: Well, can I ask just one little . . question? Why the . . . Boonah?

Mr X: I didn’t want Boonah. Boonah was the only thing that wasn’t in it. But Boonah, I acknowledged in the submission, that they might have to bring Boonah in for numbers, depending, but on how much growth was here. Actually the way its turned out I would say that Boonah shouldn’t have been, because there is enough there anyway, but Boonah . . . even on the up to date Roll, when you find the final rush of people enrolled, you’d be way over quota.

Don Cameron: Had you left out that whole subdivision of Boonah, or-?

Mr X: Yes, yes, Boonah ‘s deadly.

Don Cameron: Because I frankly didnt’t understand you-

Mr X: No, no.

Don Cameron: When you had told me you had made a submission just as it came out.

Mr X: No, I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said that. What I said was the the boundary should come down round about here, to there. And I said that there should be enough because of the rate of growth up in here, but if you have to pick them up, well pick them up here and you know that’s the way the . . . thing has turned out. But Shapcott is going to be hard to toss.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-During the first conversation Mr X told me how he had put in a copy of his plan to the Liberal Party- this is quite legitimate, and I do not make complaints about him in this speech- in the early stages of redistribution. The Liberal Party did not accept his suggestion for the new seat but somehow, as it turns out, it came closer to the actual seat of Fadden than any submission recorded in the reports. The honourable member for Lilley, the honourable member for Bowman and I have now seen at Liberal Party headquarters his suggested seat. Whilst I concede that one can do anything with figures, I give him approximately 76 per cent for anticipating the final new seat. In comparison with the other submissions he got the high distinction. By this time I was really unsettled. Indeed, even weeks before, I was seriously considering the question of going down with the good ship Griffith. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) can testify to the truth of that. It is history now that I nominated for the seat of Fadden, won preselection against Mr X, and after a hard battle against such a respected notable as Mr Clem Jones I won the seat.

On 27 October in this place I served warning of my intentions to pursue this matter. With the election behind me, and the worry of harming innocent colleagues well and truly disposed of, I made a speech referring to this matter at the declaration of the Fadden poll on 2 1 December. I seek the permission of the House to incorporate this speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

ADDRESS AT DECLARATION OF POLL IN FADDEN- 2 1 DECEMBER 1977

More than half of Queensland’s present federal Liberal senators and members who held office at the time of the redistribution, held and still hold the view that the federal redistribution in Queensland was subject to local outside interference.

Among that group are people whose political fortunes were not affected one way or the other by the redistribution, and who cannot be accused of having an axe to grind.

The minority group that remains unconcerned and unmoved, is comprised of members whose fortunes either remained intact, or were improved beyond their wildest dreams; and the ‘fiddler’.

A regrettable feature is that for more than a decade, when asked about the honesty of federal redistributions, I looked people straight in the eye in reply, in the belief that they were genuinely beyond outside interference.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act requires the composition of the Redistribution Commission to include one Commonwealth public servant, one State public servant, and one other person whose occupation is not designated.

The third person appointed on this occasion in Queensland was a Commonwealth public servant.

The Act must be amended to exclude Commonwealth public servants from the third position. They are not beyond outside interference, because they are like everyone else, and have a keen eye for promotion.

Queensland ‘s redistribution gave the ALP a fair go, but the interferer’s motivation was not to ‘get’ that party.

I indicated my disgust with veiled comments in the parliament some weeks ago. Now that I am back, and cannot be accused of indulging in a loser ‘s sour grapes, and my crusade will not endanger innocent colleagues, I feel free to expose the matter when parliament resumes.

Federal redistributions have been placed on the reputed level of some State redistributions, and I serve warning on those involved that this matter will not rest here.

M. CAMERON, M.P.

Member for Fadden

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Following this I wrote to the Prime Minister drawing it to his attention. He, with others, saw the honourable member for Bowman, the honourable member for Lilley and me on 19 January in his office. The senior Queensland Liberal was also present, and much discussion ensued. The senior Queensland Liberal gave the assurance that in relation to the redistribution he had had no contact with the commissioners either directly or indirectly or in any way whatsoever at any time. Quite a firm commitment. We were informed that he had given this assurance to the Prime Minister previously. He also stated that it was only at about Christmas time that he had realised that the speeches in the House and at the declaration of the poll had been addressed to him.

I agreed to the Prime Minister’s request that the Solicitor-General should be asked to give a legal opinion on what I believed constituted evidence. The Attorney-General later became involved, and they concluded a prima facie case did not exist. In view of the assurance given to the Prime Minister- the statement that there was no contact with the commissioners either directly or indirectly at any time- in our presence and in view of his law officers ‘ advice it is more than understandable that the Prime Minister wanted the matter dropped and my assurance that I would pursue it no more. I declined to give that assurance, and I have no argument with his dismissal of me. Nevertheless, my unpreparedness to give up the chase was based on good reasons.

I had witnessed my claims torn apart in the early stages on the grounds that I had not supporting evidence by way of statutory declarations or affidavits. Remembering how the senior Liberal had assured the Prime Minister and others at that meeting on 19 January that he had had no contact with the commissioners either directly or indirectly or in any way whatsoever I could not help but be deeply impressed by the following. I was told how at a luncheon in the town of Beaudesert on 26 July the senior Queensland Liberal had explained to those present the details of redistribution and how it would affect them. Honourable members will recall the dates of the Queensland program. This information was conveyed to 1 1 people at that luncheon- who knows at what other places and at other times, maybe even prior to that date. That was the case- no contact either directly or indirectly at any time. I found it difficult to accept.

I shall now read a statutory declaration signed by four of the people who were at that luncheon. A fifth has since declared to me verbally her similar recollection of events. The statutory declaration states:

We, the undersigned of Beaudesert, in the State of Queensland, do solemnly and sincerely declare that we were present at a meeting held at the Logan and Albert Hotel, Beaudesert on Tuesday, 26 July, 1977 and we have clear recollection of the following being said by the Honourable -

I will call him Mr Y-

THAT (a) Beaudesert, Boonah, Woodridge and Kingston would form part of a new electorate, and THAT (b) the Gold Coast region would form a seat that would be called ‘Gold Coast’.

We further state that Mr -

This is Mr X- was promoting himself and was being promoted by the Hon. . . . -

That is Mr Y- as the candidate in the new electorate, as outlined by Mr -

That is Mr Y- before the commissioners had even announced the new boundaries.

This document was signed by four individuals from the town of Beaudesert. I have not read out their names, but I assure the Parliament that they are all highly responsible individuals and were motivated by recent events to present me with this statutory declaration which was signed on 28 March. That luncheon was 15 days before the redistributions even came out. What is more, the Mr X is the man who claimed he was asked by ‘a Minister’- remember that Mr X was the man being promoted and presenting himself as a candidateto draw up the map which scored approximately a 76 per cent success rate, without even having knowledge of how State-wide quotas would eventuate.

The name ‘Gold Coast*? It was later explained that the reason the commissioners changed the name back to McPherson was because it was a mistake. How does someone anticipate a mistake without having contact, directly or indirectly, at some stage? At heart I would prefer peace at any time. However, when I believe something is wrong I will pursue the matter until I expose it or am satisfied that all is above board. If that which incites others to hunt me into the ground be the exposure of that which seems to be outside the laws of this land, I can make no apology. I only express my sadness that circumstances exist to lead me to conclude that something is so dramatically wrong.

In conclusion I wish to read an extract from the Logan and Albert Times, a newspaper in Beaudesert. The article refers only in part to the 1977 redistribution. The article does not point any bone at anyone. This is in an editorial in that newspaper.

As an aside by the way, although it is historical fact now that we have the seat of Fadden through the redistribution of Federal boundaries, it was quite common knowledge even back to the early part of last year that Beaudesert would be withdrawn from its long-standing Gold Coast connections in the Federal scene, and become part of a new electorate which would also include the town of Boonah; common and public knowledge.

I received a telegram during Question Time today from the former honourable member for Capricornia, Mr Carige. I seek leave to incorporate that telegram in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The telegram read as follows-

Rockhampton Qld 132/123 9.57A

Urgent . . . Donald Milner Cameron MP

Member for Fadden Parliament House Canberra ACT

Most intrigued by article appearing in today’s Courier Mail concerning Federal redistribution. Mid November had disturbing telephone conversation with Chief Electoral Commissioner for Qld. How in Capricornia the division of major communities and cities at either end of electorate is considered electoral justice completely escapes me. Over 600 individuals lodged objections to no avail. Certainly was not in accord with amended Electoral Act of 1 977. Have made no public post election comment on this matter because may have only been misconstrued as being a case of sour grapes. Please feel free to contact me in Rockhampton telephone 274839 or 276841 . . . Colin Carige former member for Capricornia.

In the telegram Mr Carige stated that he had had a disturbing telephone conversation with the Chief Electoral Commissioner for Queensland. At the end of his telegram he invited me to telephone him. I did. He informed me that on 1 December 1977 he had a discussion with a Mr Coleman about the National Aboriginal Conference election which was held a week after the State election. There were some problems and Mr Carige rang Mr Coleman about those problems. At the end of that conversation Mr Carige said to him: ‘I do not know why I should even be bothered to talk to you after what you have done to my seat’. According to Mr Carige, whom I rang this morning and who actually took notes of the conversation, Mr Coleman said: ‘It is not all my own work. I cannot and will not accept the blame on my own’. He then said: ‘Others who ought to support you in fact did not ‘.

I cannot draw too many conclusions from those words but that makes many honourable members on this side of the House believe that things were far from being above board. The honourable member for Bowman ( Mr Jull) and I have never been convinced that all was well. There are other stories. I have only mentioned one that I cannot prove. There have been several cases where it has been reported that when the public objections, suggestions and comments went in the attitude was that the commissioners had been given an instruction that there were to be no alterations in Queensland. I hate doing anything like this. It distresses me. But I also have an obligation to the laws of this land. I believe that they have been flouted. What has really driven me on is that on the one hand we had a categorical denial that anything had taken place- an emphatic statement of denial that there had been any connection, direct or indirect, at any stage- and on the other we have the continuing saga of little pieces of advice and information coming from various parts of Queensland. We now have a statutory declaration to the effect that even two weeks before the redistribution was announced in Queensland a Minister of this Government- I feel in all fairness to Mr Adermann and Mr Killen I must name the other Minister- walked round the State toting the candidate to succeed him in the seat that he had felt was most suitable. If I have made a mistake and it can be proven that I have made a mistake, I will do what I said I would do in the Prime Minister’s office on 19 January, that is, come in here like a man and say that I am wrong. But I cannot believe that I can be so wrong. At this point of time I still cannot come in and apologise to Mr Robinson.

page 1223

HANSARD REPORT

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-I wish to raise with you, Mr Speaker, a report in yesterday’s Hansard which in my submission, incorrectly records the proceedings of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is this a matter about which you seek the indulgence of the House or have you been misrepresented?

Mr WILLIS:

– I have not been personally misrepresented. I wish to draw your attention to what I believe is a quite incorrect reporting of the proceedings.

Mr SPEAKER:

-As a matter of indulgence, the honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr WILLIS:

– Yesterday during Question Time the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) was asked a question by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and in his answer the Minister for Finance referred to the growth in employment. It is the distinct recollection of honourable members on this side of the House that the Minister for Finance specifically said that there had been a growth in employment during this year. We understood that to mean during this financial year. I attempted to obtain a copy of the ‘ greens ‘ yesterday from the Minister’s office but was told late last night that the Minister had them in his possession. I checked the Hansard report this morning. What is contained in Hansard does not accord with my recollection or the recollection of other honourable members on this side of the House. I have been able to obtain a photocopy of the ‘greens’. What is in Hansard does not accord with what is in the ‘greens’. I draw the details of this matter to your attention, Mr Speaker. According to yesterday’s Hansard report the Minister for Finance said:

As to the question of employment, I again refer to the previous Treasurer’s Budget Speech in which he indicated that there would be a growth in employment this year. That in fact is occurring.

On checking the ‘greens’, I find that Hansard had typed: ‘That in fact has occurred’ and that the words ‘has occurred’ have been scrubbed out and the words ‘is occurring’ have been handwritten in. That is one change which, I submit, changes the meaning of what was said. The Hansard report continues:

Opposition members- Oh!

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Does the Opposition claim that there has not been growth in employment during the course of this year?

That statement is confirmed by the ‘greens’. A whole sentence is then contained in the ‘greens’ that does not appear in the Hansard report. That sentence is: ‘It is perfectly clear that that has occurred’. Those words have been scrubbed out on the ‘greens ‘ and do not appear in the Hansard report. That again, I submit, changes the meaning of what the Minister was saying. Furthermore, the report goes on to say:

Again, far too much emphasis is put on the negative aspects of the Australian economy. There has not been substantial employment growth.

In the ‘greens’ that second sentence, as it was typed by Hansard, reads:

There has been substantial employment growth.

The word ‘not’ has been inserted in hand writting. I suggest that there have been three changes to those ‘greens’ which dramatically change the meaning of what was said by the Minister for Finance. Mr Speaker, I suggest that you should investigate this matter, if necessary by comparison with the tape recording of the proceedings, and order that the original statements by the Minister be placed in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will make inquiries about this matter and inform the House accordingly.

page 1223

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE TACTICAL FIGHTER FORCE

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave- I wish to inform the House of the decisions taken by the Government to proceed with further development of the tactical fighter force project. Honourable members will be aware that in the Defence White Paper tabled in the House in November 1976 the Government stated that it had decided to proceed now with project development for the acquisition of new tactical fighters. It accepted that, subject to all of the necessary evidence being accessible, a decision on a generic type aircraft would be made in 1976-77 after detailed investigations had been completed. In November 1976 a request for proposals was issued to prospective suppliers of new fighter aircraft. Proposals were received progressively through early 1977 and some were delayed awaiting overseas government clearance until later in the year.

The proposals have been subject to desk evaluation in terms of information provided on performance, cost, delivery schedules, programs for development and for reduction of technical risk, and opportunities for Australian industry involvement. At the same time, the Air Force and the Department of Defence have been actively reviewing the strategic need, the financial programming implications of satisfying it under various options, the level of air capability appropriate for Australia in order to secure its interests, and the phasing by which that capability might be acquired.

Attention has been given not merely to the proposals given to us by prospective suppliers but also to the emerging option of extending the life of the Mirage aircraft which we already possess. The proven durability of the Mirage aircraft opens the prospect of extending the life of some of the aircraft beyond the early 1980s and, subject to the feasibility and economics of a program of modification and improvement, this creates new possibilities of satisfying Australia’s tactical fighter requirements by a mixture of new aircraft and refurbished Mirage aircraft.

The country needs not only aircraft with adequate weapons and performance, but also an industry to maintain them, modify them and repair them. The number of countries with the industrial and technological capability of producing at reasonable cost an advanced tactical fighter is shrinking. It has to be accepted that production of such an aircraft by Australia is not a feasible proposition; but Australian industry must receive an adequate share of work and technology arising from the decision to re-equip the RAAF’s fighter force. The involvement of Australian industry will be a consideration when it comes to negotiation with a preferred supplier. In preparation for this stage a range of possible Australian industry programs is being examined. A balance has to be sought which would strengthen the technical ability of Australian industry to support the new tactical fighter through its life at reasonable cost, without extending unduly either the timetable or the cost of acquiring a new type of fighter.

All these matters must be carefully weighed and examined. As I have said before, I make no apology for the deliberate process of examination that I have had carried out. This project is potentially the most costly single defence project ever undertaken by Australia. The type of fighter chosen for introduction in the 1980s will be in service after the end of this century. Tactical fighter force capabilities encompass air defence, air superiority, interdiction including antishipping capability, tactical reconnaissance and close support of ground forces. It is beyond doubt that the Royal Australian Air Force must at all times possess these capabilities, whether in time of high or low current threat. As with all military skills employing high technology, the lead time for acquiring them is long and the Australian core force must possess them. What has to be assessed, against the strategic situation of the country, is the standard and quantity of aircraft that we need to acquire, how quickly we need to acquire them, and the cost which the community should bear while satisfying other defence needs as well. This of course has been foremost in the mind of the Government in considering the steps that should now be taken in the further development of the project for creating the tactical fighter force in the 1 980s and beyond.

As I mentioned earlier, we have a substantial asset in the Mirage aircraft which presently comprise our TFF. These aircraft have provided an excellent capability in the air-to-air role, and the aircraft also have an air-to-surface role. We have presently three squadrons and an operational conversion unit. Two of these squadrons are deployed to Malaysia. The capability of the Mirage can be maintained at present levels until the early 1980s. The capability will start to decline thereafter through aircraft attrition. The capability possessed by the country will begin to degrade substantially around the mid-1980s if there were not some acquisition of new fighters and a Mirage refurbishment program.

While there is still some uncertainty about the life of the Mirage airframe, its air-to-air missiles and its avionics, it now appears that with refurbishment the Mirage aircraft can be retained as a cost-effective component of our tactical fighter force through to the late 1 980s. Even with refurbishment there will be some reduction in the Mirage air-to-air capability by the mid-1980s, but if a new fighter were to become operational in that time-scale in the air-to-air role the Mirage would provide an important complementary capability to that of the new fighter.

For these and other reasons, which I will mention later, the Government has decided that project development should proceed with emphasis on a new fighter with primary capabilities in the air-to-air role. It is contemplated that aircraft would commence entry into service about 1983 and a first squadron of new aircraft would become operational by about 1985. The Mirage would continue to have a limited air defence capability beyond that time and its surface attack capability would be maintained. Air superiority is to be given priority in the acquisition of a new fighter because of the fundamental importance of this capability, both for defence against air attack, in ensuring the freedom of our own operations, and to enable our surface attack aircraft to operate effectively against an enemy. Priority also stems from the fact that there are several other capabilities in the Defence Force that can contribute to the surface interdiction and close support roles.

The Government in coming to these conclusions believes that the retention of a threesquadron structure together with an operational conversion unit is a desirable planning objective for the Defence Force. As a planning base the Government considers that the number to be initially procured should provide for a squadron of aircraft, plus training aircraft and a limited number of attrition aircraft. Subject to later decisions on the Mirage component of the fighter force, it could be expected that further procurement would follow later. The Government has decided to confine further evaluation of aircraft to the following air-to-air aircraft: The McDonnell-Douglas Corporation FI 5 and F18A, the Northrop Corporation F18L, the General Dynamics FI 6, the Panavia Tornado and the Dassault-Breguet Mirage 2000.

In order to help the Government confirm a short list of new fighters for the air-to-air role, an overseas visit at senior departmental level will be made within the next few weeks. This team will explore with government and administration elements, future procurement intentions of other countries, production expectations of the contending aircraft and their weapons systems, and possibilities of technological developments. Once the Government is in a position to announce a short list, an operational and technical mission and an industrial mission will be sent overseas to carry out detailed evaluations of each aircraft on the short list. A final recommendation will then be made to the Government on the aircraft to be initially acquired and other associated matters including detailed proposals covering the agreed involvement of overseas countries in an Australian aircraft industry program.

By about the end of this calendar year detailed proposals of a Mirage refurbishment program should be sufficiently advanced to enable the Government to make an initial commitment to this program. The refurbishment of Mirage aircraft will provide an important stimulus to the Australian aircraft industry. It will assist in the build-up of appropriate skills as a precursor to Australian industry’s involvement in acquiring and supporting in service the new aircraft that is to be selected.

In conclusion I would like to stress to honourable members the importance and concern with which the Government views this proposal. What the Government has sought is the best way in which to achieve a fighter force appropriate to our needs. The Government is conscious primarily of the need to safeguard this country; to ensure that we maintain the level of air defence capability that we need now and in the shorter term, and that future governments be placed in a position to enlarge that capability in a practical way should unforeseen circumstances in any longer term future make that necessary. In perceiving that necessity for insurance for the future, the Government intends to progress the acquisition of a new fighter, but also intends to conserve and use fully the valuable asset we have in the Mirage IIIO

The Government assures honourable members that its decision to acquire a new fighter- and I repeat that it is a most costly venturewill be taken in a sequential, deliberate, but timely manner. The steps I have outlined to the House today are intended to ensure just that. I firmly believe that members on both sides of the House will agree with these steps. I present the following paper:

Further Development of the Tactical Fighter ForceMinisterial Statement, 7 April 1978.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The announcement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) has been expected for some considerable time. The Opposition acknowledges the need for a replacement aircraft for the Mirage. I am not sure that we accept that the statement made by the Minister fulfils the strategic announcements already made by the Government and the defence role for our armed services set out in the White Paper. There is every appearance in this statement that we are in fact opting for a fashionable air-to-air fighter aircraft rather than a defence capacity aircraft to carry out the roles set out in the White Paper. This has happened before and it is likely to happen in the future. On Tuesday of this week, in answer to a question on notice from the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil), the Minister made this statement about the requirement of the tactical fighter force replacement:

The primary roles for the TFF encompass air-to-air and air-to-surface capacities. These capabilities include air defence, air superiority, interdiction including maritime strike, tactical reconnaissance and close support.

The statement indicates that these roles have been narrowed in the last few days to a primary air-to-air defence role. We are not satisfied that that fits the statements contained in the White Paper on Australian Defence. I will read the statement that I refer to which appears on page 1 3 of the White Papen

Any confrontation or conflict would be, initially at least, maritime in character.

The basic need, as I understand it, of Australian defence strategy is self-dependence and a minimum of reliance on the interference or the availability of an ally to provide areas of defence which are not available to Australia. As I read the document, our defence capacity is supposed to be based on our ability to maintain and provide a major strike capacity in order to increase the cost and thus reduce the probability of any form of incursion against Australian territory. The air-to-air capacity which is referred to tends to presuppose that as a primary defence task we will be involved in air-to-air dog fight roles. I doubt very much whether that is the major and most significant strategic consideration in Australia’s defence role. The Minister for Defence has said that this is potentially- I note the use of the word ‘potentially ‘-the most expensive defence procurement likely to be made in the near future. There is one on the ‘horizon’, if I may use the word, which could be potentially as expensive if the Government eventually decides to adopt that project.

I wish to present some figures that I have been able to obtain. They are only estimates based on published figures. I will deal firstly with the purchase of a single squadron of FI 5 aircraft because it seems to me that this statement is drawn in relation to the purchase of that aircraft. I have the feeling that the change in the role of the aircraft which we are to procure too neatly fits the change in the decisions of the United States of America on the stages to which that aircraft is to be developed. A strike capacity is not to be provided in the United States version of the aircraft and the strike capacity seems to have been removed from the Australian requirements. Perhaps it is a coincidence but I think that it is too much of a coincidence. The purchase of 25 FI 5 aircraft would involve a program costing of the order of $750m. The purchase of F18A aircraft would cost approximately the same. One would doubt whether there would be any offset procurements available in respect of the F16 aircraft in view of the very wide-ranging offsets already entered into by the company concerned with the Australian Government. The cost for the purchase of those aircraft would amount to $400m to $500m. I turn to deal with the two European aircraft, the Mirage and the Tornado. It would appear that they, along with the FI 8 aircraft, would provide something of a balanced capacity in the aircraft types needed to enhance our defence capacity if our strategic assessment of protecting Australia from an incursion is, in fact, the primary role. The cost of those aircraft would run to about $800m to $900m. That is the position based on the Minister’s statement in which he talks about one squadron of aircraft. I do not confess that the figures I have given represent the actual cost which has or has not been assessed. They are the figures which I can assess.

If the Mirage aircraft is to be modified, its modification must be in an air-to-air strike capacity. On the information I am able to obtain, the aircraft is not suitable for strike operations. Its attitude and design make it a dangerous aircraft to fly and its airframe life would be jeopardised seriously if an attack type capacity were to be built into the aircraft. The Mirage can be modified to give it a reasonable air-to-air capacity in close combat. But the published reports on recent exercises suggests that while, in fact, the aircraft did well in close air combat with F14 aircraft, the umpires acknowledged that the F14 had wiped out the Mirage long before they had reached a close combat situation. Therefore, it is academic whether any such close combat would take place.

This statement by the Minister indicates that the Government has opted for a piece of equipment about which I would express extreme doubts as to whether it fits an actual defence role of the significance which the cost of procurement indicates. We believe that the most pressing air need at the moment for the Australian defence forces, given the strategic announcements which have been made about the strategic role which we would expect our forces to undertake, would be an aircraft with a substantial air strike capacity against maritime targets. The Minister talks in his statement of support for a surface operations. But it is doubtful whether an enemy’s attack capacity is likely to be of a fighter or strike aircraft type which would be likely to engage in air-to-air combat. I turn to deal with the vehicle by which weapons are transported to the point of delivery in any modern war. I would think that any nation seeking to enter into an engagement with Australia at least would have access to relatively modern weapons. Such vehicles are likely to be some distance apart and certainly not in a head-on or an individual force attack role. The F18A or the Tornado aircraft at least would provide some degree of capacity for a strike role. But the whole of this statement by the Minister indicates that a decision has been taken that we should have an aircraft which will fill an up-front dog fight glamour role. I hope that is not true. But it is a very major item of equipment. I believe that such an item of equipment must be chosen on the basis of how it fits in with all the defence forces and with what the Government and professional defence advisers see as the means by which the defence of Australia will be carried out. Obviously, we cannot have all of the equipment.

Recently I read an article by one commentator in which he said that cost should not be taken into consideration. I understand the Minister’s difficulties. We cannot have all the equipment or the types of equipment which we desire. But it is essential that the equipment we have serves the purpose for which we see our defence forces being used to the best possible advantage. I do not see an air-to-air role fighter as one of the major necessities of such a role. I certainly see an aircraft with a strong modern strike capacity being essential. Obviously, the Mirage cannot be modernised for that purpose. The Fill aircraft can be equipped with strike weapons which will give some potential in that area. But 24 aircraft do not represent a major strike capacity and certainly do not represent a major deterrent. The Mirage aircraft has the problem of a range which is not sufficient on Australia’s north and northwest coast to enable it to be fully and effectively operational. It can use only two air bases in that area. I would hope -

Mr Graham:

– Which two are they?

Mr SCHOLES:

-They are Learmonth and Darwin. I would hope that the Government will consider these aircraft and the statement that the Minister has made. It is a long-term investment which ought to have the support of both sides of the House and which ought to be fully explained and examined. The Government, prior to making an announcement on its decision, should be absolutely certain that we are not buying an aircraft because it fits neatly into what the Services see as desirable but rather that it fits absolutely into what is seen to be essential. That is a difference in the role and the purchase of the equipment which I wish to emphasise. What is essential to national defence in accordance with the best strategic advice that is available to us from all advisers and sources of information? I think 1 can say correctly that no person in this House has the capacity to assess the technical role or ability of an aircraft. We must all depend on the advice that is available.

I must say one other thing about this statement. The statement mentions five aircraft, two of which are of European origin and two of which, I think, are in the very preliminary stages of design. Recently the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is reported to have made a statement- the Minister for Defence may deny it or otherwise- that he does not care what aircraft we buy as long as it is American. The statement is on record. I would hope that that policy is not to be a criterion in the purchase of the aircraft. This is a major purchase from an overseas country and it should be negotiated on the basis that is a major purchase.

Mr Killen:

– And on merit.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Yes. We should buy the best aircraft to fit our defence needs, but we should ensure also that in doing so we do not close off our options in advance with statements such as that it must be American.

Mr Hodgman:

– Where did he say so?

Mr SCHOLES:

-The Prime Minister is reported as saying it. I will provide the Minister with a copy of the report. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Let us have a look at it first.

Mr SCHOLES:

– It is a public report. It is not a secret.

Mr Hodgman:

– It is not stolen property like that presented by your other friends.

Mr SCHOLES:

-It is from the Australian Financial Review.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio has sought leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Is leave granted?

Mr Killen:

– I have no objection, Mr Speaker. It is a matter of courtesy. The honourable gentleman may incorporate it if he wishes.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1228

FRASER WANTS US FIGHTER

by Brian Toohey

In an attempt to increase his influence in Washington the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, has said that he wants an American plane chosen as the replacement for the RAAF’s French designed Mirage lighters.

According to defence sources in Canberra, Mr Fraser has told the top brass that he does not mind what son of replacement is chosen so long as it is American.

The PM ‘s predilections come at a time when Defence Department studies were indicating that European alternatives could be more cost effective than the American planes in Australia ‘s situation.

Mr Fraser, apparently, sees his insistence on an American plane as helping to give him extra leverage in his bid to get the US to boost its military strength against the Soviet Union.

The most likely outcome of his entry into the fighter selection process is that the RAAF will end up with the McDonald Douglas F15, costing more than $20 million a copy-

Mr Fraser’s gesture toward the US on the fighter question comes at a time when some senior defence officials are refusing to endorse his hard-line, anti-Soviet stand.

In fact, some officials are being remarkedly unrepentent of the views expressed in the official strategic assessment completed late last year and since publicly rejected by Mr Fraser as inadequate.

A senior defence official, Mr Paul Dibb, has just gone on public record with an analysis that is distinctly similar in spirit, and sometimes even in direct wording, to the assessment that has been rejected by Mr Fraser.

Mr Dibb is head of the national assessments staff, which works on medium andlong term studies for the National Intelligence Committee.

The NIC has a major input into the official strategic assessment documents prepared for Australian Governments.

Mr Dibb has taken the unusual step of going on public record in a lenghty article in the August edition of the Sydney University publication Current Affairs Bulletin with an article on the balance of power in nonh-east Asia.

He is a good deal less alarmist in his conclusions than either Mr Fraser or the Defence Minister, Mr Killen.

Discussing the four powers involved, the US, Japan, China and the USSR, Mr Dibb says, ‘No one power is likely to attain strategic supremacy or a predominant position such that the other major powers would succumb to its will or influence’.

He goes on to say that ‘ there seems to have been more conscious efforts recently to maintain the balance than to upset it, because it is in each of the major power’s interests to see an enduring balance that does not concede pre-eminence to any of its competition’.

Earlier, in the context of Japan’s relativelylow defence spending, Mr Dibb cautioned that ‘to reduce the power of a State to purely military terms is to ignore some important economic and political lessons of the 1 970s ‘.

He adds (without commenting that it is very much in line with both Mr Fraser’s and Mr Killen ‘s method of analysis) that ‘some recent press reports have compared Soviet naval forces in the Pacific with the US Seventh Fleet, and have claimed that the Soviet Pacific Fleet has some 755 ships with a total of 1,200,000 tonnes, compared with the Seventh Fleet’s 60 ships of 700,000 tonnes.

Such a comparison is not very accurate because, in time of crisis, the US Third Fleet, which is also Pacific based, would undoubtedly become involved’.

Also, he said, ‘A comparison of tonnage is not a comparison of capability’.

According to the head of the NAS the Soviet Pacific Fleet consists of almost 400 surface combatants and about 10S submarines.

But he says that only about 60 of the surface combatants are of destroyer/escort size or larger; the remainder are patrol craft, mine warfare vessels and amphibious units, which are usually deployed in the coastal defence role and for the defence of Soviet merchant shipping in territorial waters.

In contrast, he says, the combined US Seventh and Third Fleets at full strength have about 80 major surface combatants, plus up to nine aircraft-carriers, and possibly 35 submarines.

Mr Dibb is an economist by training whose speciality as an intelligence analyst has been in Soviet affairs.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I have referred to the report, and I think it is right that I should present it to the House. If it is not accurate the Prime Minister has the means by which he can refute it. Based on that report, I must make two comments. The first is that the current decision is not in fact based on a revamping of the original specifications so that they meet the requirements of the aircraft which, I think, the original specifications were designed to meet, rather than our strategic needs. The second is that in the purchase of the aircraft the role of the aircraft must be paramount. The Opposition does not believe that airtoair capacity is the primary need of our defence forces at this stage. The primary need is for an aircraft which can provide strike capacity and some level of air superiority. The likelihood of dogfights over the Australian mainland or airtoair fights being the primary means of any defence operation I believe to be lower in priority than the need to provide a defence capacity which will deter any potential enemy from seeking to make inroads on the Australian mainland.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 1228

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I present a report, together with the minutes of proceedings from the Committee of Privileges in connection with a matter referred to the Committee by the House of Representatives on 28 February 1978.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask for leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The report which I have just presented relates to the complaint raised in the House on 28 February 1978 by the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) and referred to the Committee by the House on that date. The complaint related to an editorial published in the Melbourne newspaper the Sunday Observer of 26 February 1978 under the heading of ‘Political bludgers’. The Committee took evidence from Mr P. S. Isaacson, Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief, Peter Isaacson Publications Pty Ltd, owners and publishers of the Sunday Observer, and Mr A. L. Armsden, who at the time of publication of the editorial, was editor of the Sunday Observer.

The allegations contained in the editorial were examined by the Committee. It was satisfied that they were without foundation. In addition, the Committee considered that the editorial cast reflections upon members in such a way as to bring the House into contempt. The Committee found that publication of the editorial, in having reflected upon members of the House of Representatives in their capacity as such, constituted a contempt of the House of Representatives. It further found Mr Isaacson and Mr Armsden guilty of contempt of the House of Representatives. The Committee recommended in the case of Mr Isaacson that, in view of his expressions of regret made before the Committee and his publication of an adequate and acceptable apology, no further action be taken. In the case of Mr Armsden, the Committee recommended that in this instance his demeanour and actions were not worthy of occupying the further time of the House.

The report of the Committee contains another recommendation of particular significance. The Committee strongly recommended that the whole question of parliamentary privilege should be referred to it for investigation and report to the House. Such reference should be couched in the broadest possible terms, covering such matters as the means by which complaints of breach of privilege are referred to the Committee, the method of investigation of the complaint by the Committee and the penalties which should be available to the House in respect of privilege offenders.

The Committee believes that such a general review of parliamentary privilege is overdue. In 1966 the United Kingdom House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to review the law of parliamentary privilege as it affected that House and the procedure by which cases of privilege are raised and dealt with by that House and to report whether any changes in the law of privilege and practice of that House were desirable. That Committee presented a comprehensive report to the House of Commons in December 1967. A review of the 1967 recommendations was carried out by the House of Commons Committee of Privileges last year, and the Commons debated the matters and passed certain resolutions in respect of parliamentary privilege as recently as 6 February this year- just eight weeks ago. The Committee of Privileges believes that a similar review of the law of privilege as it affects this House is most desirable and will attract general support. It believes that it is the responsibility of the Parliament itself to undertake such an investigation and commends its recommendation to the House for its early consideration.

Motion ( by Mr Fife) agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for Wednesday, 12 April 1978.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1229

ABORIGINAL WELFARE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The misleading statements on Aboriginal welfare by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

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-

Mi HAYDEN (Oxley-Leader of the Opposition) (2.15)- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) is an agreeable man- so agreeable, in fact, that he is able to agree at the same time to two conflicting policies on Aboriginal welfare. On the one hand, publicly, he pretends to support Aboriginal welfare programs which are of the same nature as those which the Aboriginal movement presents and on the other, privately, he enters into sleazy, secret deals with the Queensland Government, allowing the Government of that State to maintain raciallybased policies on Aboriginal welfare. Unfortunately it is policies of the latter kind that stick. There is no doubt that the problems that have been confronting the nation in recent times, arising from the Queensland Government’s thoroughly inexcusable and quite unacceptable behaviour towards the missions at Aurukun and Mornington Island, impose themselves on the Minister and his Government because of his fickle and inconstant role as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The secret deals into which he entered and the ground he constantly gave away under pressure from the Queensland Government incited the Queensland Government to act outrageously.

A wide range of legislative power is available to the Australian Government. It could have been applied with considerable effect in Queensland to establish and preserve the basic rights of Aboriginal people in that State. In no single instance was that wide range of authority adopted. I refer, for instance, to the Aboriginal Land Fund Act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act, the Racial Discrimination Act, the Aboriginal Lands and Associations Act. Not only did the Government not apply these authorities available to it but also the evidence is that the Minister positively prohibited their use. For instance, the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations has reported scathingly about the racist attitudes permeating the Queensland Government’s Aboriginal welfare policy. It said in an official report:

An authority on the Queensland legislation has pointed out ‘that the administration of reserves has created not independence but a repressive and demoralised dependence’.

It went on to point out that the whole administration of Aboriginal welfare in Queensland by that State Government is infected with these racist overtones. In spite of that, not only was the authority under the Racial Discrimination Act not adopted but also the evidence is that the Minister prevented it from being adopted in defence of Aboriginal rights. The authority under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act not only was not adopted but also was prevented from being adopted by the tactics accepted by the Australian Government under pressure from the Queensland Government. For instance, under State legislation it is permissible for the Director of Aboriginal Affairs to take away the savings and property of Aboriginals in Queensland, to cut wages, to control their movements, to deny them the sanctity of their home, and to separate spouses from their families which are left on reserves. These thoroughly unacceptable and outmoded racist principles have been enshrined in the legislation and policies on Aboriginal welfare of the Queensland Government. It is alien to the international conventions that we have adopted. But not once has the Minister taken firm action on these matters. I repeat that the evidence is to the contrary, that is, that the Minister has positively prevented the authority being used.

I have a copy of a letter which he signed and sent to Dr Rowley, the Chairman of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission, dated 3 February of this year in which he said:

Your letter of 7 December 1977 was also the first advice to me that the Commission had taken relevant legal advice in respect of the Racial Discrimination Act. Not having been consulted on a matter of such evident policy significance, I am not prepared to give any assurance that funds would be available.

By itself that might not have seemed so significant, although it is certainly worrying; but in association with other matters for which the Minister has been responsible, clearly what he was seeking to do was to impose a fiscal discrimination, a fiscal prohibition, on the Land Fund Commission which was very rightly seeking to exercise the authority available to it to protect the rights of Aboriginals in Queensland. That was misleading behaviour on the part of the Minister. He sought to mislead Aboriginals. He sought to mislead the Australian population. He sought to mislead this Parliament by pretending that he was a man of genuine compassion in these matters.

Another matter concerns the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act of 1976. It was assented to in December 1976. It was an important piece of legislation. It gave Aboriginals the right to incorporate. That meant very simply that for the first time, if the law was effective and they could take it up, they could incorporate and establish land right claims- possess land through the proper processes of acquiring it. But the legislation was never proclaimed. It is not even proclaimed now, although yesterday belatedly, in the face of the miasma that he has made for himself through the craven way in which he has conceded so much to Queensland, he indicated some amendments to the Act. Some 15 or 16 months after his own legislation had been assented to, it has not been proclaimed. The more important thing is that it has not been proclaimed because the Queensland Government objected to its being proclaimed. The Queensland Government resented the principles involved in it coming into practice. On 10 December 1976 it wrote a letter protesting against this matter. Yet the Minister, in September 1977, had the gall to say in replying to a question from the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam) that he hoped to proclaim the Act very shortly. He knew then that he had no intention of proclaiming it. Queensland had made sure that the law was a dead letter from the Start. So again he was misleading the

Parliament and he was misleading the people, including the Aboriginal people.

On the matter of land, which is directly related to that subject I have discussed, he again failed dismally. In 1 977, in the face of resistance from the Queensland Government when the Land Fund Commission sought to acquire land at Archer River near Aurukun- more importantly, near Comalco Ltd- it was indicated that he was considering what the next step ought to be. It was indicated that he considered the matter of great importance. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in the Parliament:

The Minister for Lands refused to approve the transfer and that is where the matter stands at the moment except that the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs are considering what the next step ought to be.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs knew that there would be no more steps because on 19 January 1977, in a letter to the Prime Minister, the Premier gave the game away. We happen to have a copy of that letter. He indicated that there had been an arrangement- a secret, shoddy deal- between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Queensland Government to ensure that the expectations of the Aboriginal people in this matter would not be met. Furthermore, the evidence of the letter makes it clear that despite the undertaking that the Prime Minister gave that there was concern- by implication, that the Government was still committed to achieving land rights for Aboriginals in this area- when he said to the Parliament that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was still considering what steps to take on the matter, he had no intention of considering the matter further. A letter of 19 January from the Premier’s office in Brisbane to the Prime Minister says in one part:

I note the assurances given in your letter of 9 December that your Government will not meet any request from the proposed Council for assistance.

This refers to the land at Archer River which I mentioned before. In another part of the letter he said:

My immediate concern is that the recent land purchases by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission are in direct conflict with State policies.

We well know what those policies are. The people who moved to old Mapoon mission area were quickly forced out by what can be described as nothing short of coercion on the part of the Queensland Government. They are the policies- policies of assimilation, policies of restriction and policies designed to prevent the Aboriginal people from establishing a clearer sense of cultural identity and the achievement of land rights, freedom and independence; those things which importantly go with acquisition of land and land rights, but more importantly for Aboriginals. The most disturbing part of the letter is that the Premier goes on to say:

Of course the Commission is quite competent to purchase and to hold the lands involved.

In spite of the Commission’s competency and in spite of the concession by the Queensland Government that it was compatible for the Land Fund Commission to buy this land, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was prepared to enter into this shoddy deal which grossly misled the Parliament and the nation. In February 1977, scarcely 2 months later he was giving encouragement and hope in the Parliament to Aboriginal people and to the community who share concern for Aboriginals. The Minister may well be a charming person but on the evidence here he is nothing more than a smiling double-dealer as far as his ministerial responsibility is concerned. He expressed concern about racism and yet he erected fiscal barriers to ensure that the Land Fund Commission would not be able to protect the rights of Aboriginals in Queensland against the incursion of the racist policies of that State Government. He introduced the Aboriginal (Councils and Associations) Act to allow Aboriginals to incorporate their presence so that they could acquire land. The legislation was passed but some 15 or 16 months later he has still not arranged for the legislation to be proclaimed. Indeed, a letter from the Queensland Government of 10 December was obviously the influential force that persuaded the Government not to proceed with this matter.

On the matter of land acquisition in the Archer River area- a matter of considerable importance to the Land Fund Commission, to the Aboriginal people and to the Minister- he encouraged people as recently as 7 December 1976 to believe that the Government would do something about the matter, when in fact, the evidence is that on 9 December 1976 a letter went from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the Premier of Queensland giving an undertaking that nothing would be done. A letter dated 9 December 1976 would have been prepared well before that date and would have been the product of consultation between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Prime Minister; that is, before 7 December when the undertaking was given in the Parliament by the Minister. Again he misled the Australian people and the Parliament on several scores.

I come now to the Land Fund Commission which is in the process of getting its comeuppance because of its efforts to protect Aboriginal people. The penalty it is going to pay arises because it is not prepared to stick to the elaborate fiction that the Minister likes to broadcast that we have a government concerned about Aboriginal rights and welfare. In a letter sent to Senator Keeffe the Minister said:

No directive, instruction or advice has been issued to the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission restricting its acquisition program in Queensland.

What the Minister made clear in a letter to Dr Rowley on 3 February is: . . firstly, that the Commission inform the Minister before entering into any land negotiations in Queensland; secondly, that the Commission provide to the Minister details of any Aboriginal corporation involved in any land projects; and, thirdly, that the Commission not complete any proposed land purchase without first consulting the Minister?

On the face of it, perhaps these are reasonable requirements in terms of fiscal responsibility but in association with the evidence I have produced of the way in which secret and sleazy deals have been entered into between the Minister and the Queensland Government, fiscal responsibility and fiscal controls had nothing to do with it. What the Minister was seeking to do was to geld the operations of the Land Fund Commission. These are all serious matters. What the Minister sought to do was to hobble the Commission. A letter dated 14 July 1977 is further evidence of this. The Minister wrote to Mr Tomkins, the then Minister for Lands in Queensland and said:

I can assure you that the Land Fund Commission will not be proceeding with negotiations for purchase of Glenore Station.

That communication was conveyed to the Prime Minister by the Queensland Premier. The real reason for this is that the Queensland Government asserts that it is opposed to Aboriginal land rights because it believes that it leads to a dispersion of Aboriginal residents in mission areas and, presumably, it is not able to impose as much control as it would wish over Aboriginal people.

Finally, I refer to a minute of a meeting in the Minister’s office on 14 March this year. It is clear from this that, contrary to what the Minister has been saying, he directed that a Cabinet submission be prepared proposing the incorporation of the Land Fund Commission into an Aboriginal entitlement capital account. It is clear that the direction came from him and not departmental officers. The evidence is that the departmental officers were not happy with the idea. Furthermore, all members who have had experience as Ministers will know that when Cabinet submissions are prepared, any changes that follow are of minor detail. The outline is given to the officials by the Government. Again, the Minister has misled the Parliament and he cannot be trusted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I am glad to hear one of my colleagues say that the speech of the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) was a pathetic performance. Let the judgment be made by others and not by me of the effort of the Leader of the Opposition here today. I say at once that the honourable gentleman does not understand the nature of the legislation establishing the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. He does not understand the way in which the Queensland Laws Racial Discrimination Act, which was passed by his own Government, operates. He really does not understand, let alone refer to correctly, the contents of various documents from which he quoted.

The Land Fund Commission has its origin in recommendations made by the Woodward Commission. It is a complementary vehicle for giving effect to a land rights policy. The land rights legislation which this Government has passed, following the essential principles of the Woodward report, operates in traditional areas in the Northern Territory. Mr Justice Woodward recognised that there needed to be some other vehicle for providing to those Aboriginals who had been dispossessed an opportunity to obtain land. Therefore the Land Fund Commission can operate, for example, to return to dispossessed traditional groups- that is, groups who still follow traditional customs- land which had been taken from them for the creation of pastoral properties. This has been done for both economic and social purposes in many parts of Australia where a pastoral property has been purchased. The economic purpose is to give the Aboriginals a means of making a livelihood and the social purpose is to return them to their traditional country. The Land Fund Commission also operates in favour of those Aboriginals who have been dispossessed but, today, do not have any traditional links. I think more particularly of those living in rural areas or in cities and towns.

This Government has provided the Land Fund Commission with funds to operate in all States and, as I indicated recently in answer to a question, provision has already been made in the 1 978-79 Estimates for a continuation of that activity in all States of Australia. The letter quoted by the honourable gentleman which I wrote very recently to Senator Keeffe is explicit and accurate to describe the present position. There is no restriction upon the activities of the Land Fund Commission in Queensland. Only one or two weeks ago I was talking to Professor Rowley and he told me that there are a number of properties in Queensland which the Land Fund Commission plans to buy. Some of the properties are freehold and some are not. He will be writing to me about them. I will not name them for fear that some action may be taken to deny the Land Fund Commission the opportunity of acquiring them.

Mr Hayden:

– It has taken you a long time to come to life. The evidence is here that you did a deal with Queensland to prevent Aboriginals from getting their lands. You have only come to life since you got into trouble.

Mr VINER:

– The letter from which the honourable gentleman quoted was written barely 10 days ago. I issued general instructions as authorised under the legislation- which I might point out was passed by the honourable gentleman’s Government when in office- and I gave the reason for that in an answer the other day. Let me make it quite plain. There is no restriction on the activities of the Land Fund Commission in Queensland.

I shall deal very quickly with the two propertiesArcher River and Glenore. I regret to inform the honourable gentleman that the sources of his information have not been able to obtain from the files of the Department all the information that is contained in them. His sources of information did not know, and therefore did not tell him, that I went to Queensland on behalf of the Land Fund Commission and on behalf of the Government in order to endeavour to persuade the Queensland Minister for Lands to approve the transfer of Archer River. That is not the act of a Minister as described by the honourable gentleman. I also sought from the Queensland Minister for Lands an understanding of the purposes of the Land Fund Commission. I sought to persuade him that there is nothing sinister in it and that the Queensland Government ought to treat it as a purchaser of property in the same way as it treats anyone else who buys property in Queensland. The fundamental misapprehension of the Queensland Government with regard to the Land Fund Commission is that it believes, contrary to all the evidence, that property purchased by the Commission will become Commonwealth land and therefore will be taken away from the State. Of course that is simply not correct; the Land Fund Commission buys property in the same way as everyone else taking exactly the same title, whether it be leasehold or freehold, as anyone else. I do not know if I have disabused the Queensland Government of that misapprehension but I hope I have.

That Government gave me further information about Archer River which, as I recall, I transmitted to the Land Fund Commission. The purchase of that property was not proceeded with; not because I did not want to see it proceed but because obstacles were put in the path of the Commission, and for other Queensland Government reasons to which I referred the other day.

The matter concerning Glenore station has somewhat of a departmental history going back many years. I sought information concerning its background. It was looked upon as an alternative property which Normanton Aboriginals could have made available to them because their own traditional country is tried up. I discussed Glenore station with the Queensland Government. It seemed that on the basis upon which the Queensland Government would have expected the covenants attached to the pastoral lease to be complied with, it simply was not a proposition that could go forward; not because of any desire on my part to deny the Commission the opportunity but because all the evidence showed that it could not proceed. I know that the Land Fund Commission considered its legal position then because some statements were made which indicated that the reason why consent would not be given to that transfer was because it was going to an Aboriginal community.

The honourable gentleman may or may not be aware that under the Queensland legislation the Minister for Lands has absolute discretion. The honourable gentleman’s studies in law may not have gone far enough for him to know that there is a very limited area indeed in which the courts will interfere in the exercise of an absolute discretion. I notice that the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam) is sitting behind the honourable gentleman at the table. He will be aware of the legal implications of what I say. When representatives of the Land Fund Commission went to the auction to buy Glenore station in November they did so without first having advised me that they would bid at auctionin fact the letter from the Chairman was dated 8 December, two days before the election. After the election I returned to find that this property had been purchased at auction but of course it had to run the gamut of the absolute discretion of the State Minister for Lands to consent to the purchase. In what sort of position was I, in order to do anything? Further, the Commission said that it desired legal action to be taken under the Racial Discrimination Act, if that was possible. The answer quoted by the honourable member for Oxley is an answer to that particular aspect of the matter.

In summary, with regard to the Land Fund Commission, there are no proposals before the Government for the abolition of the operations of the Land Fund Commission for the policy purposes about which I have spoken. Discussions have taken place with my Department, as evidenced by the minute which has fallen into the hands of the honourable gentleman- from whatever source at the moment I do not know. I would have thought that it would have been in the interests of Aboriginal people throughout Australia to look at the possible conjunction of the activities of the Land Fund Commission and the Aboriginal entitlement capital account referred to in the policy statement of the present Government of November 1975 and also to look at that account and its particular nature related to the question of dispossession and dispersal of Aboriginals which, as I pointed out, is the very fundamental purpose for the creation of the Commission along with other activities in this area of the Department and other instrumentalities of the Government, namely the Loans Commission and the grants-in-aid for enterprise purposes provided by the Government. I do not detract for one minute from the kind of ideas that I have put forward for consideration by the Government and the kind of review that is being undertaken in my Department at present because I am quite sure that from that review, and having regard to some of the considerations which I have mentioned, there will be a much better vehicle in the end for giving effect to those fundamental purposes of the Government of which I have spoken.

The honourable gentleman referred to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975. I regret to say that on the part of the Opposition there is a complete misconception about the operation of that legislation. It seeks to strike down the very abuses of human rights, of which the honourable gentleman spoke- the discriminatory actions and legislation of the Queensland Governmentbut it does it in such a way that it creates a right in the hands of any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander in Queensland to protect himself against discrimination by reason of the provisions of this legislation. So the Commonwealth Government is not required to enforce it in the sense of launching a prosecution, obtaining a conviction and having a penalty imposed because there are no such enforcement provisions in this legislation.

The honourable gentleman sought to say that there is evidence that I have prevented action being taken under this legislation. Let me inform him that the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service of Queensland at this very moment is considering bringing action on behalf of certain individuals to recover wages that should have been paid by virtue of that legislation. I had discussions with representatives of the Legal Aid Service only a couple of weeks ago in which I was informed of that intention to embark on litigation. Of course the Legal Aid Service is funded by the Commonwealth. Let me also inform the honourable gentleman for his benefit that a number of prosecutions have been launched in Queensland against individual Aboriginals. The Aboriginal Legal Aid Service on the basis of this legislation has put in a defence and the prosecutions have been promptly withdrawn. That is the way in which this legislation has worked and is working at present. To use the Opposition’s terminology, as inaccurate as it is, it is being enforced in Queensland. That is a protective measure and I applaud the former Government for introducing it and striking down the kind of discriminatory laws which existed then and which still exist in Queensland.

The honourable gentleman said that there was some evidence to the effect that I had prevented action being taken under the Racial Discrimination Act arising out of the report of the Commissioner for Community Relations on Queensland. I just do not know what he is talking about because no such action has been taken on my part. The honourable gentleman ought to know what is provided for in the Racial Discrimination Act by way of inquiry and report of the Commissioner for Community Relations.

The honourable gentleman mentioned the Aboriginals Councils and Associations Act. I ran into trouble with that legislation. A number of States did not agree with it. Perhaps the honourable member would like to judge why a number of the States did not agree with it. Queensland was one. Western Australia was one. South Australia was one. Victoria expressed some misgivings about it. At two meetings of the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council, one in 1976 and one in 1977, 1 had some pretty vigorous discussions with State Ministers. The transcripts are there if honourable members opposite wish to see the way in which I defended this legislation. I was, however, prepared to accommodate the States in two of the issues. One of these the States regarded as being very important and it was referred to in the second reading speech which I made when I introduced a Bill yesterday. So quite clearly the case of the honourable gentleman has no substance whatsoever.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

page 1235

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I claim to have been misrepresented on several important points. First of all, the point I made in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act was that the Government had prevented the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission from applying the authority under that Act and had used physical clout to bully the Commission out of taking any action. That evidence is contained in a letter to Dr Rowley on 3 February 1978, which I quoted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Would the Leader of the Opposition mind pointing out to the Chair where he has been misrepresented? I will then be able to follow his remarks.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Let me make my remarks more pointed in relation to Glenore station. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) has presented his rebuttal of what I said in such a way as to suggest that I have been neither accurate nor honest in what I said. I resent that accusation because I have official documentary evidence for everything I said.

Mr Hodgman:

– Stolen property

Mr HAYDEN:

– In that case, I would have asked the honourable member to fence it. His background would allow him to do that. A communication from the Queensland Premier to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 24 February 1978 quoted the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs as saying to Mr Tomkins, the then Queensland Minister for Mines, on 14 July:

I can assure you that the Land Fund Commission will not be proceeding with negotiations Tor purchase of Glenore station.

Again, in a letter of 19 January from the Queensland Premier to the Prime Minister, the Premier said, and the Prime Minister would have given the undertakings referred to after consultation with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:

I note the assurances given in your letter of 9 December that your Government will not meet any request from the proposed Council for Assistance.

That referred to the land matters which have arisen. Quite clearly, again today the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has sought to mislead the House. Another quibble which he has taken up–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I thought the honourable member was taking a point where he had been misrepresented.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am. I am taking another point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member must not debate the matter.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has claimed that I said that the Government had before it proposals to terminate the Land Fund Commission. He uses this quibble against the newspapers which have taken this matter up just as much as we have in this House. It might be a lawyer’s tactic, but it is misleading. What I have said is that the minute shows that the Minister instructed that a Cabinet submission should be prepared by his Department which effectively would destroy the Land Fund Commission and put the whole administration of these matters under his direct political control.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I cannot remember any Minister making a statement that contradicts that in any way.

Mr HAYDEN:

-With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by saying that the Minister has shown again today that he is thoroughly misleading. Once again he has presented evidence to prove that his word on these matters cannot be accepted as reliable.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise to take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I contend that in canvassing a point of order in this House the Leader of the Opposition cannot make direct charges against another member of this House. I suggest that the matters he has just raised should be struck from the record. They are not relevant to a point of order and therefore are not matters which should be canvassed in this chamber in this way.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Before the Leader of the Opposition raises his point of order, I think I should say that I am inclined to uphold the point of order taken by the Leader of the House.

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– You would, obviously.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition had better watch his step.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Well, I think you could too.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If he wants to propose a substantive motion against the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, that is his business. But, in the meantime, he is dealing with the issue that he has been misrepresented. I ask him to stick to that point.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard copies of all the official documents from which I have quoted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Hodgman:

– What about the stolen ones?

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Why not? You want to challenge me. Come on. Put them in Hansard Let me see how your credibility stands up.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Will the Leader of the Opposition resume his seat for a moment.

Mr Viner:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr Hayden:

– Well, Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Would both honourable members kindly resume their seats? Although I did not hear it at the time, I announce that apparently the Leader of the House has refused the request by the Leader of the Opposition for leave to incorporate documents in Hansard.

Mr Viner:

– Yes.

Mr Hayden:

– I did not hear him say that. I thought they were worried about the evidence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the Minister. Has he a point of order?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I should like to make a personal explanation, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Do you claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr VINER:

-I claim to have been misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition seeks to incorporate in Hansard documents which he has. The point is that he does not have all the documents. His source has not been assiduous enough to obtain all the documents. As he puts so much store on the minutes of the meeting on 14 March, I am quite happy for him to table those minutes.

Mr Hayden:

– All the documents, including the ones which show -

Mr VINER:

-I am quite happy -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will be quiet. I cannot see how the Minister is explaining where he has been misrepresented.

page 1236

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Are you speaking to the point of order?

Mr YOUNG:

-No, that is finished. I move:

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr YOUNG:

-We on this side of the House are shocked that the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) has not already come into this House to refute the allegations which have been made -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, in order that the House might hear this point would you ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide to resume his seat?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Would the honourable member for Port Adelaide resume his seat?

Mr Sinclair:

– I suggest that it is now incumbent upon the honourable gentleman to write out the notice of motion, to sign it and to hand it to you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Yes. Would the honourable member for Port Adelaide be prepared to do that?

Mr YOUNG:

-It has all been done, Mr Deputy Speaker. This Parliament is entitled to an explanation on the charges -

Mr Sinclair:

– I move:

Mr YOUNG:

-. . . which have been made about the Queensland redistribution.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 69

NOES: 28

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– I second the motion because the allegations made by the sacked Government Deputy Whip -

Question ( by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Gellibrand be not further heard.

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 28

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It may help honourable members if I inform them that just before the division was called I was notified that this matter was coming on. I was on the verge of issuing a Press statement from my office on this matter. That is the reason why the Government is not permitting this debate to occur. That Press statement -

Mr Young:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister and the honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume their seats. There is a motion before the Chair which is designed to enable the honourable member for McPherson to speak to the House.

Mr Innes:

– He wants to talk to the Press, though.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Melbourne that if he interjects again I will name him. The purpose of the motion is to allow the Minister for Finance to speak. He is entitled, therefore, to be heard in silence. Does the honourable member for Port Adelaide wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Young:

– Yes. My point of order is that the distribution commissioners in Queensland are the responsibility of this Parliament and the reports of those commissioners are the responsibility of this Parliament. It is unacceptable, so far as we are concerned, for the Minister for Finance now to tell us that we should do away with our rights in this Parliament because he intends to talk to the Press. We demand that a statement be made in the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. There is no substance to the point of order. I call the Minister for Finance.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I inform the Parliament that as soon as I return to my office I will authorise a Press statement which suitably answers the allegations that were made. I do not need to use the forms of this House.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– It is a curious situation when the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) proposes to conduct debates by postcard -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question before the House is that the Standing Orders be suspended. I have called the Leader of the Opposition and I assume that he is speaking to that motion. If so, his remarks must be relevant to that question. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is the view of the Opposition that the Minister should respond in the Parliament. He should not send a letter, as it were, to members of the Parliament by way of the media indicating what his defence may or may not be. The allegations which were made today are the most serious that one could imagine. They go to the very heart of the parliamentary system. They go to the very heart of the integrity and the standing of the Government, that is, they go a very long way, if indeed the journey is not endless. These matters should be canvassed fully in this Parliament. It is thoroughly unacceptable to us for the Minister to seek the opportunity briefly to declare that if we wish to go to the Press Gallery we may be fortunate enough to pick up a copy of his Press statement which gives some sort of explanation of the most challenging sort of allegation which can be made against any member of the Parliament.

Effectively, what has been levelled against the Minister is the allegation that he has been party to a conspiracy to rig electoral boundaries. It is alleged, therefore, that he has been party to a conspiracy to try to determine the course of the democratic procedures in this Parliament. There can be no credibility left in a government that is not prepared to debate the matter. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) said that at least the Minister for Finance was prepared to go public on the matter. He is not prepared to go public on the matter. Releasing a Press statement does not put him to any public test at all. If he declared that he would hold a Press conference his persuasiveness would be greater, but not sufficient or great enough to be acceptable to this Parliament. The allegations that have been made against him, I repeat, are of the most serious kind. They have to be cleared up. They sully the reputation of the Government. They suggest very clearly that not only is the Minister involved but that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) also has been party to a conspiratorial effort designed to suppress public disclosure and discussion on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Speaker, I am suggesting that the Minister should be required to state in this Parliament exactly what is his defence. It is not acceptable for him to fabricate some sort of defence, and it is justifiable to say ‘fabricate some sort of defence’ in view of the serious allegations made against him and the Prime Minister, who has got dirty hands in this matter, on the basis of what the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) has said.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain relevant to the motion before the House, which is for the suspension of Standing Orders. He will not debate the matter or I will require him to resume his seat.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am seeking the suspension of Standing Orders so that this matter can be cleared up. If the Minister says that he is prepared to go public, to make a Press statement, he ought to be prepared to go all the way. He ought to be prepared to discharge properly his responsibilities to this Parliament and to give it a statement of what he intends to do. It is not acceptable to us that tomorrow morning we read the morning newspapers to find his version of the statement. In fact, I suggest that the matter cannot even stop there. The Government has something to hide and the Prime Minister is implicated in this matter. Once again the Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will remain relevant to the motion. The motion is for the suspension of Standing Orders. I do not wish again to draw that to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Not only that, but the honourable member for Fadden is entitled, as a matter of fair play, to respond to any statement that the Minister might make. He, too, has some rights in this matter. It is not a matter of innuendo. It is not a case of a tissue of inferences. It is a matter of a very forthright series of serious allegations being made in this Parliament that go right to the heart of the credibility and integrity not only of the Government and the Minister but of the Prime Minister also. The allegations should be answered in this Parliament or the Minister concerned and the Prime Minister will leave this Parliament tonight with a very serious doubt over their heads. That is thoroughly unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The time for debate has expired. The question is that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 70

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr Young- Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide to remain patient. I announced that I had changed the recording of votes in the last division. But my attention has been drawn to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition actually voted in the divisions before that division. So I direct that adjustments be made to those divisions also. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I move:

Mr Speaker, I do not think that the -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard. Those of that opinion say Aye, to the contrary No, I think that the Ayes have it. Is the motion seconded?

Mr Willis:

– I second the motion, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-May I see a copy of the motion? The question now is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say Aye, to the contrary No -

Mr Young:

– Just a minute, Mr Speaker. I thought the motion was that I be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That motion was passed.

Mr Young:

– Oh, no. Break it up.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am prepared to put the question again. The honourable gentleman must follow the procedures of the House.

Mr Young:

– We will try, but we did not elect the Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman will not only withdraw that remark but also apologise.

Mr Young:

– I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member makes a remark like that again, I will name him immediately.

Mr James:

– We will all walk out then.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable members on my left pay attention to the procedures, they will understand that I put the question that the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard and I said that the Ayes had it. There was no demur. It is up to the Opposition and particularly the Manager of the Opposition Business to call for a division if he wishes one to be called. I will put the question again. The question is:

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

Those of that opinion say Aye, to the contrary No, I think the Ayes have it. Is a division required?

Opposition members-Yes.

Question put-

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 28

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). As a result the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and the Solicitor-General presented a report to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I have that report, and I propose to table it.

However, I would point out that unfortunately the Attorney-General today is at a meeting with State Attorneys in Melbourne. The SolicitorGeneral is overseas. Neither of them has therefore had any opportunity, either to examine and consider the assertions made by the honourable member for Fadden today to see whether or not they correlate entirely with the matters which are covered by the report or, to determine whether or not they are prepared to release this document. The document covers almost entirely the assertions made today by the honourable member for Fadden and certainly relates in its entirety to the matters which were canvassed by the honourable member for Fadden when he first raised these matters with the Minister for Administrative Services.

In those circumstances I table the document which is a report from the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and suggest that if members of the Opposition examine that document in full they will find that it answers the assertions made against my colleague the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson). I believe there is no case to answer. If the Opposition wishes to raise the matter in the House it has recourse to the procedures of the House which I know you, Mr Speaker, administer with true impartiality.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

Leave granted.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. This matter has already been the subject of debate in this chamber this afternoon. The matter has been answered by the Government. I suggest that the matter has already been satisfied through the debate conducted here.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will hear the motion first and then I will give the Leader of the House the opportunity to continue his point of order. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to state his motion again.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I move:

I have moved this motion because in the course of debate today the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) said that not all the documents were available when I presented my case.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, are you going to respond to my point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. I indicated that I would give the Leader of the House the opportunity to continue his point of order. I call him now.

Mr Sinclair:

– The matter, although it was a matter of public importance and therefore not debated to the point of a division, has been debated by the chamber. I suggest that the matter is now being substantially repeated by the honourable gentleman. In that case I suggest that it is not appropriate that he now canvass it, although he can do so by way of the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr Hayden:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. It became necessary to move that motion because of the challenging statements that were made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He pointed out in the course of his response to my claims that the documents from which I quoted, which are copies of official documents, represented only some of the relevant documents, and thereby sought to argue that the case I sought to present fell well short of that which would have been presented if I had had access to all of the documentation. I am quite happy to have access to all of the documentation. I am even more happy to provide the opportunity for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to establish his case properly by presenting all those documents. On the basis of the relevant documents I have available and from which I quoted today and which he prevented me from having introduced into the record of the House, it is quite clear that the Minister has been misleading the Aboriginal people, the Australian community and this Parliament, and that he did that again today.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will speak to the point of order. In fact, I have heard enough from the honourable gentleman to rule on the point of order. This issue is not the same as the issue that was before the House earlier to day. Before the House earlier today was the discussion of a matter of public importance. This motion is different because it calls for the suspension of Standing Orders and the production of documents. Therefore I will admit the motion as being in order.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker-

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: 67

NOES: 28

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-I second the motion. This -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the honourable member for Capricornia be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question now is that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), be agreed to.

Question put.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 67

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1244

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

This Bill to amend the income tax law will introduce measures to counter tax avoidance and give effect to a number of Government policy initiatives that have already been announced.

These policy initiatives include the new concession to allow shareholders a rebate of tax for share capital subscribed to companies engaged in off-shore petroleum exploration and development activities. The 1977-78 Budget decision to liberalise the income tax deductions for gifts of works of art and comparable property to public libraries, galleries and museums will also be given effect by the Bill. The measures against tax avoidance are wide-ranging and are an important step in our program to strike down tax avoidance arrangements.

As a Government, we simply cannot accept a situation where the actions of a few can jeopardise the wellbeing of us all. Not only do these practices make the Government’s basic task of economic management more difficult, but also they can seriously jeopardise our program of tax reform designed to reduce the overall burden of taxation. Furthermore, it is particularly unfair when, in many cases, the persons involved in these schemes are the ones best able financially to accept their tax liabilities. It would be idle to imagine that tax avoidance in all its forms will ever cease. There is a flourishing tax avoidance industry in all corners of the world and plenty of talent available to devise schemes of avoidance. It has long been recognised that it is reasonable for taxpayers to so organise their affairs as to minimise liability for taxation. However, the Government believes that some techniques of tax avoidance are so blatant, contrived and artificial as to go beyond the bounds of reasonableness.

There may be no absolute community standards by which particular forms of tax avoidance may be judged. I would not pretend to be able to offer a complete definition. I do, however, assert that some of the schemes which have been practised, and are the subject of this Bill, are clearly at odds with the general welfare of the community. It does no credit to those concerned to be involved in a scheme where of $10,000 claimed as a deductible gift, just $120 is enjoyed by the charity concerned, with the promoter of the scheme benefiting to the extent of almost $ 1 ,400. Nor, I think, would it be regarded generally as reasonable tax planning for a group of people to contrive, through trading in and dividend stripping of shares, to transform what is undoubtedly a profit of $5,000 into a deductible loss, for tax purposes, of $970,000. Taxpayers and their advisers do have a responsibility as to the lengths they go in exercising legal means of minimising tax payments. (Quorum formed)

Against this general background, I turn now to the anti-avoidance amendments that are a feature of this Bill. The matters covered under this head are schemes involving the creation of tax losses through the issue and subsequent sale of bonus shares, abuse of the gift provisions, creation of artificial share trading losses, dividend stripping, artificial acquisition of ‘primary producer’ status for averaging purposes and steps to avoid tax on undistributed income and tax on dividends.

Bonus shares

The amendment relating to bonus shares has been made necessary by the legal interpretation applied in the well-known Curran case. The essential elements of the Curran schemes are that taxpayers who seek to be treated as share traders can artificially create a tax deductible loss which can then be offset against their normal taxable income. For example, a person may pay $ 1 90,000 for shares with a face value of$ i 0,000 and, after accumulated profits attaching to those shares have been capitalised by the issue of bonus shares to a face value of $190,000, the total parcel of shares is sold for $ 1 95,000. Under a Curran scheme the person claims to have incurred a loss of $185,000 whilst, in commercial terms, a profit of $5,000 has in fact been made. These schemes can be used to create whatever loss is required by a taxpayer to eliminate tax liability completely.

The Bill does not disturb the rules that an individual shareholder who is issued with nonredeemable bonus shares paid up out of capital profits is not taxed in respect of the receipt of those bonus shares, or that a resident company is not taxed in respect of any bonus share issued to it. The amendment proposed in the Bill will mean that, in calculating the taxable profit or loss on disposal of shares by a share trader, the only cost attributed to a bonus share, where the shareholder is not taxable in respect of its receipt, will be the part of the cost of the original shares that is fairly attributable to the bonus shares.

I draw particular attention to one aspect of the amendment in relation to bonus shares, namely, that the amendment will apply to bonus shares allotted after the Budget date of 1 6 August 1 977. The Government has decided to adopt this application date because of the extreme gravity of the situation involving bonus share schemes. Precise quantification cannot be made, but all the indications available to the Government are that hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue would be lost if the amendment were confined to bonus shares allotted after today. Not only would many high income earners be freed from tax in 1977-78, but also a number would not pay tax for years into the future because of large carryforward losses they have sought to create by schemes of this kind.

In deciding that this amendment should apply after 16 August 1977 the Government recognises that retrospectivity is involved. On this occasion we make no apology for acting retrospectively to protect the public revenue. Generally, the Government has supported the view that the rights of taxpayers under existing legislation should not be altered retrospectively. However, the Government believes that whilst it is generally the case that the public interest can best be served by not applying tax legislation retrospectively, on this occasion the public interest requires a departure from this general practice. The Government’s decision reflects its view that the abuse represented by the Curran type schemes is so blatant and of such a magnitude that it constitutes a serious detriment to the general body of taxpayers.

The Government also had in mind that it was doubtful whether any person entering into a Curran scheme in recent months could genuinely have believed that there was no risk that his or her enjoyment of the benefits of the scheme would remain totally immune from retrospective legislation. This is especially so in light of the clear warning against tax avoidance given in last year’s Budget Speech. In fact, some promoters of these schemes have offered ‘money-back guarantees’ in the event of the schemes being retrospectively struck down. It is important to emphasise that the amendment will not be retrospective to earlier financial years. The effect is that losses generated by allotments of shares under Curran schemes from and after 17 August 1 977 will be denied deductibility against income earned during this and subsequent financial years.

Gifts

The abuses of the gift provisions against which this part of the Bill is directed all have the common feature that the donor seeking a deduction for a gift to one of the funds or institutions referred to in the gift provisions of the law does not, when the reality of the situation is laid bare, really make a gift of anything like the amount or value for which a deduction is claimed. Correspondingly, the charity does not enjoy anything like the full amount or value of the ostensible gift. Under one gift scheme the donor seeks a deduction for a $ 10,000 gift that is made to an institution, $ 1 ,500 of the amount coming out of his or her own funds and the balance of $8,500 being lent by the promoters of the scheme. The institution, pursuant to an overall arrangement, pays the promoters a procuration fee of 98.8 per cent of the gift, leaving it with $120 out of the $10,000. The procuration fee puts the promoters in funds not only for their $8,500 loan to the donor, but provides them with a substantial fee. In practical terms, the donor does not have to repay the $8,500 loan.

In further schemes of the same kind the gift to the charity is a note or debenture which, despite the claim for a deduction of its face value, is rendered almost worthless by subsequent, prearranged, changes in its terms and conditions. The charity receives cash from the sale of the note or debenture at its reduced value, and the diminution in value accrues to the donor or his associates. Plainly, the Commissioner of Taxation is resisting claims through these shoddy schemes for deduction, made under the law as it stands. However, as the courts may find that the nominal rather than the real gift is deductible, the Government proposes to put the matter beyond doubt in relation to gifts made after today. I stress that the amendments will deny any deduction for a future gift only when made in tax avoidance circumstances of the broad kind to which I have just referred. Genuine gifts made in ordinary circumstances to the funds and institutions concerned will not be affected.

A closely related exploitation of the gift provisions is also being dealt with in the Bill. This concerns practices whereby a donor gives a work of art, or money to buy a work of art, on the condition or understanding that the donor or a relative or other associate may have possession of the work. Generally, there will be no deduction for gifts of this kind made after today. However, if the gift is one that qualifies under the liberalised provisions to which I will refer later, a reduced deduction will be allowable. In such cases the deduction will reflect the full value of the work as discounted for the benefit that flow a from retaining possession and enjoyment of it. The Bill further provides that, where there is an arrangement that the donee will use a gift to acquire property from the donor or an associate, there will be no deduction.

Share Trading Losses

The Bill has the broad objective of preventing deduction of ‘manufactured’ or artificial losses from trading in shares, by enabling the taxable profit or loss to be calculated on the basis of the commercial realities of the transaction concerned. Honourable members will recall that amendments were made last year to counter avoidance schemes in which elections were lodged under section 36a of the Income Tax Assessment Act so as to create artificial share trading losses. The measures now brought before the Parliament supplement the earlier amendments.

Schemes of this kind are very involved. They require a number of intricate and contrived steps. Under one scheme, a partnership of taxpayers buys shares to which there are attached very substantial undistributed profits in liquid form, usually cash in the bank. The partnership is a share trading one, which means that its taxable profits or losses from share trading are allocated to the partners and are reflected in their individual assessments. Although the shares that the partnership buys would be very valuable to it if they were purchased in a straight- forward manner, the partnership in fact pays only a nominal amount, as it is part of the pre-arranged plan that the company concerned will issue specialclass shares to an associate of the promoter from which the partnership bought the shares and will pay its previously undistributed profits as a dividend to that associate. For example, a partnership buys shares for $25,000 that are worth $ lm and the dividend that is paid on the special-class shares is $970,000. The partnership then sells the stripped shares for $30,000, making a commercial profit of $5,000. It claims, however, a loss of $970,000 on the basis that a provision of the law deems the partnership to have acquired the shares for their then basic value of $ 1 m.

Another variant of the scheme relies on the general deduction provisions of the law. A share trading partnership buys shares for $ 1 m which it later sells for only $30,000, because the worth of the shares has been stripped away by payment of a dividend of $970,000 to another company. The dividend cannot effectively be taxed in the hands of the recipient company because that company is a straw company and has no realisable assets after the scheme is carried out. The partners claim for tax purposes to deduct the $970,000 loss but, and here is the point, they do not in reality have to bear the loss or any part of it. This is because the partnership has been lent money to acquire the shares under an arrangement whereby the loan is in fact not repaid. In the jargon of the trade, the loan is collapsible. Schemes of this kind have not been tested before the courts. I expect that this will happen in due course because the Commissioner of Taxation will be vigorously resisting them. However, the Government proposes to put the matter beyond doubt for relevant acquisitions of shares taking place after today.

Dividend Stripping

In this avoidance scheme a company buys shares in a company with accumulated profits; strips these profits by way of dividend and subsequently sells the stripped shares, thus recouping itself for the initial share purchase. In 1972 the law was amended to prevent a company from both deducting the apparent loss on sale of the shares and being allowed an intercorporate dividend rebate on the full amount of the dividend paid. Those amendments limited the rebate to the net amount of the dividend after offsetting the cost of the shares and any other deductions associated with the dividend.

Dividend strippers have found a way around the 1972 amendments. While one company receives the stripping dividend, it is an associated company or trust that incurs the apparent loss. In these circumstances there is no basis in the present law for offsetting the cost of the shares against the rebatable dividends To overturn this variation of the scheme it is necessary to provide that, where a company receives a dividend in the course of a stripping scheme, and it is a part of the scheme that an associate takes the apparent loss on the sale of the shares, the company that receives the dividend is not to be allowed any rebate in respect of the dividend. This amendment will apply to dividends declared after today.

Re-imbursement Dividends

A private company is liable to tax on its undistributed profits if it does not pay sufficient dividends to its shareholders. In respect of business profits, a private company is allowed to retain 60 per cent of its profits after company tax, and is required to pay the balance as dividends to its shareholders if it is not to pay the undistributed profits tax. Under one current scheme of avoidance, the payment of dividends to shareholders is illusory. The company does pay or credit dividends to a shareholder but is not put out of funds by doing so. One reimbursement technique is for the shareholders concerned to put broadly equivalent funds into the company, for example, by subscribing for redeemable preference shares that, after payment of a one-and-for-all dividend, carry virtually no rights. The shareholder receiving the dividend is not taxed on it because the special class shares are sold at a loss which is offset against the dividend.

Under another technique, dividends are credited to a shareholder but the amount is not actually paid to the shareholder but is used to pay up an almost worthless share or debenture. The shareholder in this scheme is an institution whose income is exempt from tax and a small fee is paid for its services. Dividends declared after today under schemes of this kind will not be taken into account for purposes of tax on undistributed income.

Abuse of Averaging Provisions

A decision of the High Court given at the end of last year has made it necessary to amend the law so that the averaging system applicable to primary producers is not available to people who have no real stake in a primary production business and have become a beneficiary in a primary production trust simply to gain the benefits of tax averaging. The averaging system is applicable to taxpayers who directly or as a beneficiary of a trust carry on a primary production business. The court case arose out of an avoidance scheme by which thousands of beneficiaries were each given a $1 share of income from a primary production trust. The Court held, in a test case, that one of these beneficiaries thereby qualified for tax averaging for his entire income.

Plainly, that is not a situation in which averaging should apply. Our proposed amendment is confined in scope to the special provision applicable to beneficiaries in primary production trusts. If the beneficiary’s share of income of a year is $1,040 or more, the law will apply as it does now. If, however, the beneficiary’s share falls short of this figure, averaging will not apply unless the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that the beneficiary’s interest was not acquired primarily for the purpose of attracting the averaging provisions. Beneficiaries in primary production trusts of the traditional kind will not be affected by the amendment. Where it is applicable in relation to avoidance schemes of the kind I have outlined, the amendment will apply in the determination of averaging entitlements in 1978-79 and, for people who enter into such schemes after today, in the current financial year.

Mr Deputy Speaker, that completes my outline at this stage of the principal antiavoidance measures contained in this Bill. Those measures are not the sum total of the response that we intend to make to prevent tax avoidance practices. Other amendments are in course of drafting and will be introduced at the earliest practicable time. Let me now turn to the other measures contained in this Bill.

Expenditure Pursuant to Franchise

The Bill contains provisions to withdraw the deduction for capital expenditure on a revenueearning facility erected pursuant to a government or public authority franchise.

Debate interrupted.

page 1248

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being 4.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1248

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– The provision in question was enacted some years ago to cater for circumstances not commonly encountered. At the time, leaseholders were entitled to deductions for capital expenditure on leasehold improvements. It was therefore appropriate that where a taxpayer was granted a right by a government authority to construct and maintain an undertaking of public utility, and to earn revenue from it, the taxpayer could deduct over the life of the franchise the capital costs incurred in the project. However, the law was amended in 1964 to withdraw the deduction available to lessees for the cost of leasehold improvements. It is now anomalous that taxpayers who can arrange to be franchise holders can deduct costs not deductible to taxpayers who build on leasehold or freehold land. The deduction for franchise holders is being withdrawn in relation to capital expenditure on franchises granted after today.

Shareholder Rebates

On 24 August last year the Deputy Prime Minister announced in this House a number of decisions made by the Government after considering ways of assisting the development of gas fields on the North West Shelf. The decisions included the provision of three very important taxation concessions. Two of these, the general extension by two years of the 20 per cent phase of the investment allowance and the inclusion in allowable capital expenditure of the cost of natural gas liquefaction plant, have already been carried into legislation.

The third concession is the shareholder rebate scheme. By this Bill, shareholders who, after 24

August 1977, subscribe share capital to a company holding a registered interest in an offshore licence or permit, will be eligible for a tax rebate. The rebate is available only when the company lodges a declaration with the Commissioner of Taxation that the moneys are earmarked for expenditure on exploration or development of an off-shore petroleum field. A corollary of this will be that the company will forgo its own right to deductions for the expenditure under the petroleum mining provisions of the income tax law. The scheme therefore permits the transfer of tax allowances for eligible expenditure from a petroleum mining company to its shareholders.

The Bill puts into effect the policy decision outlined in the earlier statement by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). The new scheme draws very much on the earlier concession under section 77d of the Income Tax Assessment Act under which shareholders were allowed deductions for capital subscribed to mining companies. However, experience with that concession led to the Government’s decision to provide strengthened safeguards against exploitation of the new concession when no real contribution to exploration or development is made.

Liberalisation of Gift Provisions

It was announced in the last Budget Speech that there would be a liberalisation of the gift provisions of the income tax law as they apply to gifts of works of art and comparable property to public libraries, art galleries and museums. The Bill implements that undertaking effective from 1 January 1978, and for a trial period of three years. (Quorum formed). I am delighted that the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) shows such a conspicuous interest in tax avoidance matters. At present, the deduction for gifts of property to specified funds and institutions is limited to property purchased by the donor within the preceding 12 months, and to the lesser of its current value and its cost to the donor. The Government considers that there should be some changes in these rules to encourage people owning significant works of art or other items of cultural property to donate them for public display.

Details of the Government’s policy are contained in a statement by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) on 30 December 1977. The essence of the trial scheme, however, is that a taxpayer will be eligible for a deduction for property that has been held for any length of time and, in general, the deduction will be an amount equal to the market value of the property. Claims for deductions will need to be supported by valuations from approved valuers and a committee established with the co-operation of the New South Wales and Victorian governments will approve valuers for this purpose.

The Bill also introduces a deduction for gifts to the Australiana Fund. This Fund is set up to facilitate the making of gifts of cash and works of art, including furnishings, for the fitting out of Government House, Admiralty House, The Lodge and Kirribilli House. Gifts to this Fund will be allowed on the same extended basis as proposed for gifts to public libraries, art galleries and museums. I mention here that the Bill brings up to date the gift provisions as they apply to gifts to the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory national trusts. The Northern Territory body has been re-constituted and the Australian Capital Territory body has been made a separate entity, instead of being a branch of the New South Wales trust. The amendment means that gifts to the national trust of each State and internal Territory will be tax deductible.

Isolated Children’s Allowance

Another change to be made by the Bill will benefit taxpayers who have dependent children for whom payments are made under the isolated children’s education assistance scheme. In 1973 these payments were made exempt from tax in the hands of the recipients. However, they continued to constitute separate net income of the children for purposes of calculating entitlement to the zone allowance and other rebates. That can have the effect of reducing the rebates available to the parents of the children and the Bill provides that the allowances are not to be taken into account as from 1 July 1977.

Vocational Training Scheme

Payments under the former regular servicemen’s vocational training scheme are also dealt with by the Bill. These payments are akin to payments under the National Employment and Training scheme which were made subject to income tax in 1975. Payments under the vocational training scheme are correspondingly being made taxable with effect from the scheme’s commencement on 1 February 1978.

Current Year Losses

There is yet another area of avoidance that it has not been practicable to make the subject of proposals in this Bill but which is of such importance that the Government has decided to announce amendments effective as from today. The term current year losses is a convenient shorthand description of it. Honourable members will know that the law contains a number of highly complicated provisions developed over the years to counter equally complicated arrangements for trafficking in tax deductible losses incurred by companies in prior years. In essence, a company may not deduct against income of a year a business loss incurred in a prior year unless throughout both years either the same persons beneficially owned more than 50 per cent of shareholders’ dividend, voting and capital rights, or the company carried on the same business after a disqualifying change in shareholdings as it carried on before the change. The essence of current schemes is that losses incurred by a company while under the ownership of one set of shareholders are sought to be offset against profits earned in the same year under another set of owners.

The arrangements have two basic forms. In one type, a company that has in the early part of an income tax year traded unprofitably is sold to a new group of shareholders who in the second part of the year inject into the company income that is offset by the losses of the early part of the year. The other form is the reverse of this. A company that has traded profitably in the early part of a year is sold to another group which creates artificial losses. These losses are set against the income earned by the company in the early part of the year under the original proprietorship. Honourable members may have noticed heavy advertising in the Press of schemes of this kind. The principles governing deduction of prior-year losses being a settled part of the law, the Government sees no reason why the same principles should not be applied to govern the deduction of current year losses. We propose that the law be amended accordingly.

The new provisions will work along the following lines: The existing provisions of the law for determining whether there has been a sufficient continuity of ownership will be applied. If there is a disqualifying change in ownership, the new provisions will not apply if the company satisfies the ‘same business’ test that now applies in respect of prior year losses. Where, however, the company fails both tests, its taxable income of the year will be calculated by treating the two parts of the income year as if they were separate years. Where these separate calculations show a taxable income in one part of the year and a net loss in the other, the amount of the loss will not be offset against the profit. The proposed legislation will apply the same principles where there is more than one disqualifying change in the course of the year. The proposed current year losses amendments will be applicable to all situations where a disqualifying change in ownership occurs after today.

Technical Amendments

The Bill also contains some other more technical amendments of a significant kind, notably those dealing with the transfer of mining capital expenditure deductions from companies to their shareholders, aspects of the anti-dividend stripping provisions and the averaging system for primary producers as it applies in the context of the new standard rate personal tax system. All the provisions of the Bill are explained in the usual explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable members. Due to the complex technical nature of the legislation the Government does not intend to resume the debate on the Bill for at least a few weeks to allow adequate opportunity for comment on the technical aspects of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 1250

QUESTION

BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the eighth report of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. The general principles adopted by both Houses provide for the broadcast to cease when the motion for the adjournment is moved or at 1 1.30 p.m., whichever is the earlier. This provision has applied since 1946. On 22 February of this year the House agreed to new Standing Order 48, which provides for the motion for the adjournment to be put to the House automatically at 10.30 p.m. and, in most instances, an adjournment debate of approximately 30 minutes duration follows.

The question of broadcasting the adjournment debates has been considered by the Committee and it was the unanimous opinion of the House of Representatives members of the Committee that adjournment debates in the House, provided they occurred before 1 1.30 p.m., should be broadcast. No change is proposed to the existing arrangements concerning the adjournment debates in the Senate. The Committee proposes that its recommendation take effect as from Tuesday next.

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

That the report be adopted.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

House adjourned at 4.44 p.m.

page 1251

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

HMAS ‘Albatross’: Fire Damage (Question No. 89)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

What was the estimated value of damage which the Fire Board has received from the Department of Defence concerning the fire at HMAS Albatross on 4 December 1976 (Hansard, 1 9 April 1977, page 99 1 ).

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

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

The estimated value of damage advised by the Department of Defence to the Fire Board is as follows:

These figures were reported in the 1976-77 Annual Report of the Commonwealth Fire Board which was tabled in the Parliament in September 1977.

Defence Service Housing (Question No. 182)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

What improvements are needed to bring Service housing in the Moorebank, Holsworthy and Anzac Village areas up to a desirable standard.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Service housing in the Moorebank, Holsworthy and Anzac Village areas has been provided by the New South Wales Housing Commission under Commonwealth/State Housing Agreements and directly by Commonwealth purchase or construction.

Prior to 1 966 it was not the practice of Housing Commissions to build houses for servicemen to the Services’ Scales and Standards of Married Quarters.

However in 1966 the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement was amended to permit State Housing Commissions to build houses to those Scales and Standards.

In 1 972 the Government agreed to an upgrading program for houses throughout Australia built prior to 1966 under CSHA arrangements to bring those dwellings as far as practicable up to current Scales and Standards.

That program has been largely completed.

In respect of the Moorebank, Holsworthy and Anzac Village areas the total Army housing stock is 2040 dwellings of which 1430 were obtained under CSHA arrangements and 6 10 by direct Commonwealth provision.

The 1430 dwellings provided under CSHA arrangements include 810 constructed before 1966 which require substantial upgrading and 120 which require marginal upgrading. The balance are generally in accordance with Scales and Standards.

All the pre- 1966 houses except for 310 have been upgraded or are in the process of upgrading. Improvements to the 3 10 are under consideration. The deficiencies by comparison with Scales and Standards include such items as carports, lock-up sheds, paths and drive strips, clothes hoists, hot water systems and insect screening.

The post- 1966 dwellings require less modernisation and a program of improvements is being considered.

In relation to Commonwealth owned married quarters, 260 of these are of the pre-fabricated type erected mainly about 1956. Although their condition varies from dwelling to dwelling it is doubtful whether it is economic to spend any significant sum on their modernisation. The alternatives of rehabitation or disposal are under consideration.

As to the balance (350) of the Commonwealth owned dwellings, they are generally of a better standard than the other dwellings but nonetheless some of these require improvement to bring them up to standards and a program to do this is being considered.

Artificial Limbs and Appliances (Question No. 2 14)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 23 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the present delay in providing artificial limbs at each of the Artificial Limb and Appliance Centres.
  2. ) What is the delay in the case of ‘Canadian hips ‘.
  3. 3 ) What is the reason for these delays.
Mr Garland:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. Delays are primarily related to the patient’s medical condition. The normal delay in weeks (from application to completion of manufacture) in the provision of an artificial limb is of the order of:

Any patient whose need of a limb is medically assessed as warranting a priority would be fitted well inside the times quoted.

  1. ‘Canadian hips’, which are usually fitted as the result of massive trauma or surgery, are very dependent upon the ability and speed with which the patient recovers and the availability of an artisan who is skilled in the fitting and manufacture of such a complicated prosthesis.

The normal delays ( in weeks ) for ‘ Canadian hips ‘ are:

There are two cases in Victoria where patients lodged applications for replacements to their ‘Canadian hip’ prostheses nearly 9 months ago. In both cases immediate replacement was not considered necessary by the Rehabilitation and Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre technical staff as satisfactory repairs could be made. Neither patient has been immobilised and production schedules indicate that the manufacture of one patient’s prosthesis will commence shortly. The Department has been unsuccessful in its attempts to contact the second patient.

  1. ) As many amputees are aged or ageing and suffer from other ailments, there are some whose fittings are delayed beyond the figures quoted in reply to part ( 1 ) because of factors outside the control of the Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Service, such as: amputee’s general health, the condition of the amputee ‘s stump, the unavailability of the patient, a difficult fitting, availability of experienced staff in complex fittings.

In those instances where an amputee requires a replacement limb, repairs are often effected to the existing limb to keep the amputee mobile, should a waiting time be involved.

Action has been taken to reduce the longer waiting times in Victoria by the creation of a number of new positions and the temporary transfer of artisans from other Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Centres which are in a more satisfactory work-load situation. The position will improve as new staff become fully trained.

Minister for Defence: Overseas Travel (Question No. 257)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) On what occasions and for what purposes has he travelled overseas since 1 1 November1975.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him on each occasion.
  3. What was the cost of (a) travel, (b) accommodation and (c) other expenditure, and what was the total cost incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him on each journey overseas.
  4. Which airlines and /or other means of transport were utilised during each journey overseas.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. to (4) I refer the honourable member to Senator Withers ‘s reply to Senate question No. 1116 which appeared in Hansard, 9 November 1 977, (pages 2397-8 ).

Department of Defence: Expenditure on Travel and Subsistence (Question No. 258)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What amounts of his Department ‘s travel and subsistence expenditure were spent on (a) overseas and (b) domestic travel during 1 976-77.
  2. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistence did each of these amounts represent.
  3. ) Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of 5 October 1977 as Question No. 1645 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

The honourable member would appreciate that expenditure by the Department of Defence on Travelling and Subsistence includes expenditure incurred by Service personnel as a result of postings policy, discharges, and recreation leave, and in respect of field exercises.

It also includes travel undertaken by Natural Disasters Organisation personnel and students attending the Australian Counter Disasters College at Mt Macedon Victoria, and Defence Science and Technology personnel.

1 ) The amounts expended on travelling and subsistence, in 1 976-77 are set out below:

a ) Overseas $8,06 1 , 024

Domestic $26,285,145.

The percentages of the Department’s expenditure on travel and subsistence were:

Overseas 23.5 percent

b ) Domestic 76.5 per cent.

Yes.

Minister for the Northern Territory: Overseas Travel (Question No. 263)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) On what occasions and for what purposes has he travelled overseas since 1 1 November 1 975.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him on each occasion.
  3. What was the cost of (a) travel; (b) accommodation and (c) other expenditure, and what was the total cost incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him on each journey overseas.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised during each journey overseas.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

I refer you to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Senate Question No. 1116 (Senate Hansard, 9 November 1977, pages 2397-98).

Department of the Capital Territory: Expenditure on Travel and Subsistence (Question No. 277)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What amounts of his Department’s travel and subsistence expenditure were spent on (a) overseas and (b) domestic travel during 1 976-77.
  2. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistance did each of these amounts represent.
  3. 3 ) Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of 5 October 1 977 as question No. 1656 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Mr Ellicott:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The amounts expended on fares and travelling allowances in 1976-77 are set out below. For comparison I have incorporated figures for the two full financial years of the previous Government, i.e. 1973-74 and 1974-75:
  1. Yes.

Employees of Naval Dockyards: Membership of Unions (Question No. 296)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) To which unions, Federal and State, do employees of the Naval Dockyards belong and how many employees belong to each union.
  2. ) To which unions, Federal and State, do employees of other Defence establishments and laboratories belong and how many employees belong to each union.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The number of weekly employees by unions of the Naval Dockyards as at 28 February 1 978 are as follows:
  1. No information is kept in other Defence establishments or laboratories of employees’ union affiliations, and no practical method is available to obtain the information requested.

Coastal Surveillance (Question No. 321)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did an experienced member of the Western Australian fishing industry, Mr Michael Kailis, along with others of the Western Australian Marine Services Association, of which Mr Kailis is president, submit to the Government in 1976 a scheme for adequate maritime surveillance of Australia ‘s northern coasts.
  2. If so, (a) did the submission recommend the commissioning of a fleet of 10 to 18 vessels about 22 metres long with a draft of 2 metres or less, with a top sustained speed of about 50 kilometres per hour, each costing $600,000 and having a crew of 8, including possibly a naval officer, customs, migration, anti-drug and quarantine officials, to be stationed at Exmouth, Port Hedland, Broome, Darwin, Gove and Thursday Island.
  3. Would this proposal be cheaper and more effective for quarantine, migration, anti-drug and customs purposes than the proposed Defence Department contracts for 14 patrol boats costing $5m each to be delivered from 1982 and frigates on order at $2 50m each.
  4. Will he consult with officers of his Department and the Departments of Health, Northern Territory, Transport, Post and Telecommunications and others with a view to prompt revision of the priorities for a coastguard service, including u fleet of Nomad aircraft, more Tracker aircraft and a network of unmanned radar beacons, as a Defence function.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. A submission dated 16 June 1976 and entitled ‘Patrol Boats for Surveillance on North Coast ‘, was received in 1 976 from the Western Australian Marine Services Association.
  2. The submission recommended a fleet of 18 vessels of the dimensions and capabilities mentioned, at a cost which was then placed at about $500,000 each. Each vessel was to be manned by a crew of 8, with provision for one extra officer representing a Government department appropriate to the occasion. The vessels were to be stationed at 13 centres.
  3. The acquisition of the patrol boats and the frigates is based primarily on the requirements of national defence, although use of defence capabilities for peacetime civil purposes is a secondary role.
  4. As announced by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in January, a Committee of Permanent Heads of relevant Departments has been established to examine urgently future requirements for civil surveillance and the most effective way of providing an appropriate level of resources to meet those requirements. Proposals of the type advanced by the Western Australian Marine Services Association will be covered by the Permanent Heads Committee.

Defence Force Call Out (Question No. 335)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What formal procedures must be adopted to enable Regular forces to be called out in cases of (a) aid to the civil community for anti-terrorist activities and (b) natural disasters.
  2. What procedures are required to call out Reserve Forces in similar circumstances.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) Where aid to the civil power is sought which involves the likelihood of the Defence Force being involved in the use of force, it is necessary to call out the Defence Force before that aid is provided. Procedures for such call out depend on whether it is being provided at the request of a State or whether it is being provided to safeguard Commonwealth interests.

A call out at the request of a State must observe the procedure set out in section SI of the Defence Act which implements section 1 19 of the Constitution. There must be a proclamation by the Governor of the State that domestic violence exists therein, an application by the Executive Government of the State to the Governor-General, a proclamation by the Governor-General declaring that domestic violence exists in that State and finally an Order by the Governor-General calling out the Permanent Forces (other than the Reserve Forces).

It is further provided that the Citizen Forces and the Reserve Forces may only be called out for the protection of a State against domestic violence if the numbers of the Permanent Forces are insufficient. There is an express prohibition on call-out or use of the Citizen Forces or the Reserve Forces in connection with an industrial dispute.

Where the Defence Force is called out to safeguard the Commonwealth ‘s own interests, the procedure set out in section SI of the Defence Act does not apply. However, the Government has been advised that the step of invoking the assistance of the Defence Force to safeguard the Commonwealth’s own interests should be taken by the GovernorGeneral acting upon the advice of Ministers. In the case of the call out on 13 February 1978, the advice to the Governor-General was tendered by the Federal Executive Council.

Where the likelihood of the Defence Force members being involved in the use of force does not exist, for example, to deal with a natural disaster, or to carry out a bomb disposal task under such circumstances, there is no requirement for call out. The Defence Force acts only in response to requests from the responsible civil authorities in accordance with guidelines and instructions endorsed by the Minister for Defence.

Members of the Reserve Forces or the Citizen Forces rendering military service at the time could be employed on this type of assistance as well as members of the Permanent Forces. When not rendering service at the time, members of the Reserve Forces or Citizen Forces could, in peacetime, only be invited to volunteer for such tasks.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Question No. 393)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 March 1 978:

  1. In order to provide services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting held in Sydney, how many officers (a) from his Department and (b) from instrumentalities associated with his portfolio, travelled from their home base to another location.
  2. What was the cost of travel involved in these movements.
  3. What was the total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to these officers.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) - (a) A total of 1,199 personnel from my Department were involved, comprising 2 civilians, 58 RAAF personnel (helicopter support) and 1,139 Army Personnel (security duties).

    1. Nil.
  2. Cost of travel for the civilian personnel amounted to $112. Service personnel were deployed by Service transport at no additional cost.
  3. Travelling and other allowances paid to civilian personnel were $23 1.75. An amount of $472.50 in Incidental Allowances was paid to RAAF personnel.

Defence Research and Development (Question No. 422)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What percentage of the Defence Budget is allocated to research and development.
  2. What percentage of the research and development component of the Defence Budget is allocated to avionics research.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Research and development is estimated to comprise about 4.4 per cent of the 1977-78 Budget of $2432.3m for Defence Function Expenditure.
  2. It is estimated that 1.4 per cent of the research and development component of Defence Function Expenditure is allocated to avionics, defined as electronics installed as part of the airborne platform. In addition it is estimated that a further 1 .4 per cent of the research and development component is allocated to research on electronic instruments installed in aircraft for other purposes.

Armed Forces: Training and promotion (Question No. 424)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

Have there been any cuts in training programs or promotion courses in the armed forces owing to financial restrictions imposed in the last six months.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The armed forces are continuing to operate effectively within the financial framework of the 1977 budget and the manpower ceilings presently applicable to each Service.

Modifications have been made in training programs in order to meet changing Service priorities and to accord with the Government’s stated policy for expenditure restraint. Training programs, however are continuing to be maintained at a professionally satisfactory level.

Promotion courses have not been adversely affected nor have individual promotion prospects been jeopardised.

Department of Defence: Domestic Air Travel (Question No. 449)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What sum was paid by his Department, or by Departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department, to each airline for air travel within Australia during 1976-77.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Department of Construction: Domestic Air Travel (Question No. 456)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What sum was paid by his Department or by Departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department to each airline for air travel within Australia during 1976-77.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

Payments in 1976-77 as shown in the accounting records of the Department of Construction were:

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 507)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. (a)(i)45;(ii)2.(b)(i)12;(ii)l23.
  2. (i) $660,889; (ii)$74,098.

Removal of Explosives from Former Firing Range (Question No. 534)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What action has been taken to remove artillery and /or mortar shells from the old Army firing range at Warnbro, Shire of Rockingham, Western Australia.
  2. Is it a fact that there are now houses on and near the old range, and that residents are fearful as some shells have recently been unearthed.
  3. If no action has been taken, will he investigate the situation and arrange for the area to be cleared of shells.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In September 1977, Army explosives demolition personnel were summoned to remove an unexploded object. As a result of this, a total of six unexploded items were found, some close to completed houses, others in areas scheduled for development.

In October 1977, at the request of the Assistant Police Commissioner of Western Australia, some 40 hectares of land under development were cleared by Army Engineers of Headquarters 5 Military District.

  1. I am not aware of the full extent of the housing development at Warnbro.
  2. Although my Department will continue to assist when explosive items are discovered, no assurance can be given that an area is free of unexploded ordnance.

Royal Australian Air Force Radar Installations (Question No. 551)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978:

Are antennae on RAAF radar installations at Amberley and Darwin Air Force Bases seriously corroded and in danger of breakdown.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

No.

Royal Australian Air Force Radar Installation, Amberley (Question No. 552)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice on 8 March 1 978:

  1. Was the breakdown in radar installations at the Amberley Air Force Base due to corrosion in vital parts.
  2. If so, does similar corrosion exist in other radar installations.
  3. Have high levels of maintenance on these units been necessary for some rime.
  4. Have stocks of vital spares been (a) depleted and (b) not purchased.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. No.
  4. There is a shortage of some spares but they are on order and are awaiting delivery.

Service Officers: Employment after Retirement (Question No. 603)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 March 1 978:

Did any former senior officers of the Armed Services, after resigning or upon retirement, accept business appointments with companies which tender for defence contracts during the period December 1975 to December 1977; if so, what are the names of the officers and the companies involved.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The Services do not maintain records of employment of members after retirement and do not require ex-members to advise details of employment.

RAAF Housing, Lalor Electoral Division (Question No. 616)

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) How many houses have been allocated to the RAAF in each Victorian Housing Commission estate in the Werribee sub-division of the Electoral Division of Lalor.
  2. How many of these houses are currently unoccupied, in each estate, and what is the reason in each case.
  3. What is the average period for which houses have been vacant in each estate,
  4. Are any houses surplus to RAAF requirements; if so, how many.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The RAAF has been allocated Victorian Housing Commission dwellings in four estates in the Werribee subdivisions of the Electoral Division of Lalor, as follows:

    1. Laverton- 232
    2. Laverton North-340
    3. Werribee ‘A ‘-207
    4. Werribee ‘B’-20.
  2. ) As at 14 March, houses unoccupied were as follows:

    1. Laverton- 5
    2. Werribee ‘A’-3.

With the exception of one house- 60 Market Road, Werribee the subject houses are vacant due to the normal turnover of tenants and for between-tenants maintenance. In respect of 60 Market Road, that house was severely damaged by vandals and has been vacant for two years. It has now been completely rehabilitated, however, and is to be re-occupied.

  1. The average period of vacancy between tenants is some 3 to 4 weeks.
  2. None of the houses is surplus to RAAF requirements.

Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations: Queensland Government Participation (Question No. 622)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 March 1 978:

Is he able to say whether the Queensland Government changed its intention of refusing to participate on the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations; if not, has any further government to government approach been made in relation to this matter.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The Queensland Government, with whom the initiative rests, has not informed the Commonwealth of any change in its attitude to the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations.

Defence Expenditure (Question No. 655)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What action is proposed to reduce the proportion of Defence expenditure taken up by manpower, as foreshadowed in the Defence White Paper of November 1976 and repeated in the Governor-General’s speech on 2 1 February 1978.
  2. What was the total expenditure on defence during 1 976-77 and what is the estimated sum for 1 977-78.
  3. What percentage of these sums was allocated to manpower and related expenditure.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In my statement to the Parliament on 22 September 1977,I indicated that the Government Defence Policy is to maintain the manpower, equipment and skills that will allow us to be ready in time to defend ourselves should this ever become necessary. The Government continues to give priority to the equipment program and this requires that expenditure on manpower be contained to the maximum extent possible.

As stated in the White Paper, the efficient use of manpower calls for continuous review of the essentiality of Service and civilian activities and the ways in which savings in the use of manpower can be achieved.

  1. The total Expenditure on Defence Function during 1976-77 was $2,256.330m. The Budget provision for !977-78is$2,432.328m.
  2. In 1976-77, 54.6 per cent of total Defence Function Expenditure was allocated to manpower expenditure (i.e. salaries, allowances and DFRDB payments). In the 1977-78 Budget, the equivalent provision is 53.7 per cent.

RAAF Mirage Replacement (Question No. 658)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have comparative evaluations been made of the following aircraft: (a) Viggen 37, (b) Jaguar, (c) Tornado, (d) F14, (e) F15, (f) F16, (g) F18, (h) Corsair and (i) Mirage 2000.
  2. Did the Government state that the choice of a replacement aircraft for the Mirage would be from existing aircraft and not from proposed aircraft.
  3. Which aircraft have been actually subject to physical evaluation.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Comparative desk evaluations have been made of the aircraft listed.
  2. ) No, but the Government is aware of the need to minimise the technical, operational, financial and other risks associated with the purchase of military aircraft.
  3. None.

Naval Patrol Boats (Question No. 659)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Are the patrol boats on order from Brooke Marine, being constructed to the original specifications.
  2. If modifications have been made, to what extent have these modifications affected the performance capacity of the patrol boats.
  3. Does the Government require modification to such an extent that the performance will be reduced to only marginally above that of the attack class that they are to replace.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The patrol boats which are being constructed to the Brooke Marine PCF420 design include modifications to the original specifications submitted by the company. Brooke Marine agreed, prior to the award of construction contracts, that the performance of the PCF420 would not be adversely affected by the inclusion of these modifications.
  2. and (3) The modifications are being made to improve the overall performance and habitability of the patrol boats. The include the fitting of the proven MTU (Moteren and Turbine-Union) main propulsion diesel engines, stabilisers and various improvements to the layout of the craft. Provision has also been made for alternative fitting of a throughdeck or on-deck gun mounting. These modifications will not reduce the performance of the new patrol boats, which will be superior to the Attack class in speed, range and seakeeping.

Government Procurement Policy (Question No. 683)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

Has the Government considered the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy dated May 1 974; if so which of the 39 recommendations has the Government decided to (a) accept and (b) reject.

Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by me to question No. 86 placed on notice by the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam), Hansard. 16 March 1978, page 893.

Government Boards and Statutory Authorities (Question No. 698)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of all persons serving on Government boards or statutory authorities.
  2. ) What fees or expenses are those persons entitled to.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Information on membership of such organisations is contained in the Commonwealth Government Directory published each year.
  2. Remuneration by way of salary, allowance, fees and expenses are paid in accordance with determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal, which are publicly available.

Royal Australian Air Force Officers: Business Appointments after Retirement (Question No. 714)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 6 March 1 978:

Although there is no requirement (a) to collect information for Air Force purposes on the period which elapses after retirement before senior RAAF officers take up business appointments (Hansard, 2 November 1977, page 2746, question No. 1227 (3)) or (b) to hold records in Air Office regarding acceptance of business appointments after retirement (question No. 1227 (5)), does the Air Office in fact have information which would enable him to confirm that the ex-officers or any of them named in question No. 1227 accepted the position or any of them named in the question.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Air Force Office does not have information which would enable me to confirm that the ex-officers or any of them named in question No. 1227 accepted the positions or any of them named in the question.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 April 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780407_reps_31_hor108/>.