House of Representatives
10 October 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1589

DEATH OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL I

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– As all honourable members will know, the death occurred on 29 September 1978 of His Holiness Pope John Paul. I move:

That the House notes the death, on 29 September 197S, of His Holiness Pope John Paul, and expresses its profound regret at his passing.

It was with deep shock that we heard 1 1 days ago of the death of Pope John Paul. Elected to the papacy on 26 August, his reign was tragically brief. No pontiff in modern times had so short a tenure. In that lies a very human tragedy- that of a man chosen for his church’s highest office but who almost in the same hour was taken from it. Yet even in such a short time Pope John Paul had been able to make a strong impression, winning widespread affection with his simple, selfeffacing style.

Pope John Paul was ordained in 1935 and thereafter rose to bishop, archbishop, cardinal and finally Pope. During this period he displayed a capacity for reasonableness and moderation. He also eschewed ostentation and much of the pomp and ceremony of ecclesiastical office. On being elected Pope he chose to have a simple ceremony for his installation in St Peter’s Square. Pope John Paul’s entire ecclesiastical life was spent in northern Italy but his was no narrow experience. As Archbishop of Venice his diocese included not only this historic and beautiful city but also the highly industrialised area of Mestre.

One of his strengths which was undoubtedly a factor in his being chosen to succeed Pope Paul VI was his involvement in pastoral work, including the daily round of visits to the sick, to schools, factories and seminaries. Another factor may have been his outgoing warm-heartedness. Pope John Paul combined an unassuming manner with infectious good humour. Although Pope John Paul had displayed an attachment to orthodoxy, he was prepared to travel down the road of reform opened by the Second Vatican Council. He showed deep concern for the poor and the underprivileged. He saw the need for social change and symbolised this by his own personal actions.

He was a man of decision tempered by goodhumoured tolerance, a man of austerity but with considerable personal charm, a literate man but one able to communicate simply and directly to all peoples. His untimely death will be a loss both to his church and to mankind.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– On behalf of the Opposition, I support the condolences that have been expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on behalf of the Government. The reign of Pope John Paul was sadly short. He was a pastoral pope who brought a spark of joy and happiness to a world which in many respects is unsure and gloomy. He was a man from a poor background, elevated by dint of hard work and intellectual ability; but he remained a man of humility, simplicity and friendliness. He clearly demonstrated an understanding and responsiveness to those throughout the world who suffered hardships.

It is impossible to gauge with any sense of reliability what the late Pope John Paul’s contribution would have been, but certainly, on his record, he would have been a moderate reformer, a progressive, and the world, and especially his Church, would have been better for his term of service as Pope if it had been, happily, a longer one. His elevation was a welcome one. His presence in office was encouraged by the goodwill of people from all walks of life and from all religions throughout the world. His passing is a tragedy for the world as much as it is a tragedy for his Church. I join with the Prime Minister in conveying the condolences of the Opposition on such an unhappy occasion.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their place.

page 1589

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon the delegates attending the Fourth Australian Parliamentary Seminar. On behalf of the House I extend to the delegates a very warm welcome.

Honourable members Hear, hear!

page 1589

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pornographic Publications

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

That we the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography call upon the government to introduce immediate legislation:

  1. . To prevent the sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes;
  2. To penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children;
  3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale of such pornographic childabuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films;
  4. To take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornograph child-abuse materials, publications or films

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Sir William McMahon, Mr Baume, Mr Gilford, Mr Graham, Mr Killen, Mr Martin, Mr Martyr, Mr Morris, Mr Shack and Mr Stewart.

Petitions received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its recommendations-

  1. Have been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc. (Note: Refer quotations reverse side).
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 31 persons, and for the Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ‘a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment’, which has ‘effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the “family” ‘.

Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will-

  1. Simply receive the Report and not adopt its Recommendations,
  2. Set up a Select Parliamentary Committee along the lines of the New Zealand Select Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after birth in accordance with the UNO Declaration of the Rights of the Child as part of Australia’s support for the Year of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal

Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Baume, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Dobie, Mr Lucock and Mr Stewart.

Petitions received.

The Budget

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

That because this budget will further increase the number of persons unemployed, because it reduces the average worker’s spending power by $10 per week, because it will reduce the income of pensioners, because it is unfair in placing a greater burden on the poor rather than the rich, and because it is driving this country into a depression.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that.

The Federal Government withdraws this budget and provides Australia, within this session of Parliament, with a revised budget that increases the level of economic activity in Australia, lowers unemployment, removes the burdens placed on the disadvantaged, and revives business and consumer confidence in the future of this potentially great country.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Mr Clyde Cameron, Mr FitzPatrick, Mr Les Johnson and Mr Kerin.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

That whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index figures; and whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half yearly each May and November; it is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics of democratic government and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their subsistence.

The foregoing facts impel the undersigned petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that the trustworthiness of governments should at all times be above question, and to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardships upon Australian pensioners by rejecting any Bill which has for its aim the introduction of annual adjustments of pension rates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Goodluck and Mr Neil.

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unaccepatable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefit Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd, Mr Street and Mr Yates.

Petition received.

Broadcasting: Radio 3CR Melbourne

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

That Radio 3CR Melbourne be made to adhere to the required standards of broadcasting, as laid down for all other radio stations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community radio 3CR call on Federal Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N. A. Brown and Mr Bryant.

Petition received.

Post Graduate Research Awards

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, members of the Sydney University Post Graduate Representative Association, and like people, respectfully showeth that the Government decision to tax Commonwealth Post Graduate Research Awards will result in:

  1. a further serious decline in living standards for postgraduate scholars performing valuable low cost research for the Australian community and
  2. a reduction in the standard of research at the universities as top scholars will be forced to reject offers of inadequately financed Research Awards.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reverse the decision to tax Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards and revert to the former policy of annual adjustments in line with the Consumer Price Index.

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

Petitions received.

Medibank

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

That we believe the Federal Government changes to the health insurance system are unjustified, costly and artificially bureaucratic

The planned abolition of bulk billing will place an unnecessary burden on the poor and the disadvantaged in our community. The decision to reduce the rebate paid from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the scheduled fee is an attack on real wages.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should reverse its decisions on these matters and develop proper consultation with the trade unions and the community.

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

Petitions received.

Pesticides and Chemical Substances

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned members of the Order of the White Cross International, a Humanitarian Knighthood for the Defence and Protection of Life and residents of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the undersigned petitioners are deeply concerned about the continued pollution of the environment and food in general with chemicals designed to destroy certain life forms, pretend to be the colour and flavour of certain fruit and indeed replacing food and beverages by and by with synthetics or semi-synthetics, and that this, our concern, must be the concern of many citizens with a sense of responsibility, since:

  1. If chemicals cause a reaction in one animal cell, which may result in the death of certain life forms, subjected to application of such chemical, then any other life form, including human beings must suffer in the long run from mass application of these substances since our own body cells constitute similarity to those, subject to destruction. That species have developed resistance towards these chemicals, particularly mosquitoes, which have become monsters in their own world and it is not far fetched to assume that mankind is endangered to risk an uncertain genetical development.
  2. Australia with a vast agricultural potential should be ashamed of the fact that its farmers are treated as a liability to the rest of the public since chemical manufacturers have gained critical control over the food manufacturing industry. In view of the selfish and irresponsible aims of this industry, it must be an obligation for the Representatives of the Nation to review this sector of our lives and reinstate the value and the honour of the people of the lands so that the food in the future is again produced on farms and not in chemical kitchens.
  3. The Leader and Lord of Knights of the Order of the White Cross International Dr Paul Robert Neuman has petitioned Parliament before on this issue without causing any response by Ministers or Departments concerned with the issues and due to several alarming news of possible damage related to the application of said chemicals, it is hoped that the Government will react to our petition in the interest of our all health and well being by:

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

  1. Banning DDT and its related compounds, indeed all pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, in agriculture and within all related sectors of the food industry, is implemented by the Government
  2. Legislation is passed prohibiting food manufacturers the use of chemical substances in food and beverages.

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

Petition received.

Sovereign Humanitarian Mission State Aeterna Lucina

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned members of the Order of the White Cross International, a humanitarian knighthood for the defence and protection of life and residents of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned petitioners are deeply concerned with the increase of violence, injustice, brutality, exploitation of people and chemical pollution of our environment throughout the world, occurrences which have always caused repulse of the Australian people and its Governments, indeed have caused the support wholeheartedly by all fairminded Australians to stand behind organisations, individuals and Governments who undertake measures to oppose such attributions towards evil and that we therefore humbly urge the Government to give moral support to the Sovereign Humanitarian Mission-State Aeterna Lucina since:

  1. Such a moral support in the form of official and formal recognition would be of great help to the Mission-State in its endeavours to present cases of injustice or violations of human rights before the International Court of Justice or other world bodies, particularly in cases where the articles of the World-Court would prevent the Australian Government to act, but would allow Aeterna Lucina admission due to its unique international status manifested in the constitution of the State.
  2. The creation of the Sovereign State Aeterna Lucina may prove to be a valuable contribution towards a more humane world, since the Government and its citizens have dedicated their services to peace, humane justice and happiness for all mankind and the protection of life in general and that the Missionaries, Sisters and Brothers of Humanity are prepared and committed to negotiate with any party in order to improve existing conditions and that such a State could hardly be a disadvantage to Australia, like the Vatican, the only comparable parallel to Aeterna Lucina in character, has proved to be helpful to Italy existing peacefully in the center of that country.
  3. The Supreme-Lord of Aeterna Lucina has officially and formally notified the Australian Government of the Independence act on 27 January1978 and adequate time has elapsed to warrant an initiative by the Australian Government to change the present De Facto-Status into full recognition.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, representing the Government in such matters, takes all steps required to establish an official recognition of the Sovereign Humanitarian Mission State Aeterna Lucina.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

That we are gravely concerned over the extreme weakness shown by our Prime Minister and his Government in his handling of the uranium mining situation in the Northern Territory.

While the Parliament allows a small group of antigovernment advisers to Aboriginal organizations to delay the commencement of mining the great majority of citizens and business people are being caused financial loss, and being denied the right to participate in a legitimate business.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that permision be given- and not again withdrawn- for mining to commence immediately. by Mr Calder.

Petition received.

Googong Dam: Water Recreation Facilities

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

That the sport of water skiing should be permitted on the Googong Dam.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that water recreation facilities on Googong Dam is widened to include water skiing.

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

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

That item 6469 of the standard Medical Benefits Table is the means by which payment is made for the slaughter of thousands of unborn babies every year.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

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

Petition received.

Aged Persons Accommodation

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

  1. That surveys reveal a substantial percentage of adults over the age of 55 years in the Loftus-Engadine-Heathcote and Waterfall areas of the Hughes electorate, are in urgent need of special housing and nursing home accommodation.
  2. That many families in the area are experiencing difficult in the placing of their aged parents in suitable nursing care; many cases having to be placed in care many kilometres from their families and consequently causing great strain on the relatives concerned.
  3. That this problem is aggravated by this area’s geographical and public transport isolation from the rest of the Sutherland Shire.
  4. That Government subsidised nursing homes in other parts of the Hughes and Cook electorate have long waitinglists and in fact, have closed their lists to further inquirers.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will-

  1. Acknowledge that there is a need for the construction of an aged persons complex in this area as already acknowledged by the Federal/State Co-ordinating Committee for Nursing-Home accommodation in NSW.
  2. Take immediate action to provide sufficient funds in the current financial year to finance the construction and maintenance of an aged-persons complex, providing hostel and nursing bed accommodation in this area.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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

That we oppose any expansion of the facilities of Kingsford-Smith Airport which entails the building of a new runway as it would have the following detrimental effects.

  1. The loss of one mile of waterfront including Lady Robinson’s Beach and a huge part of Botany Bay.
  2. The loss of up to 1,230 houses and a drop in value of remaining neighbouring properties.
  3. the creation of more noise pollution in the area.
  4. The creation of more traffic congestion on streets leading to and from the airport.
  5. 5 ) The forced diversion of Cook ‘s River and further damage to the ecology of the area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will not consider satisfying the airport needs of Sydney by extending Kingsford-Smith Airport and that any decisions related thereto are not taken before there is an opportunity for adequate consultation with any community particularly affected.

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

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

  1. Your petitioners desire to draw to the Government’s attention that removal of Section No. 6469 on Health Refunds would transgress a woman’s right to the rebate available via Medical Health Insurance.
  2. Furthermore, as Section 6469 on Health Refunds is the item for abortion and to remove Medical Rebate for Item No. 6469 would be penalising thousands of women.

Your petitioners strongly oppose the removal of No. 6469 from the Medical Rebate list.

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

Petition received.

Mail Service to Ireland

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

That there is a definite need for a Surface Air Lifted mail service between Australia and Ireland.

We believe that as such a service exists presently with the United Kingdom, West Germany, Holland, Italy, Canada and the United States of America, the extension to Ireland would be appreciated, especially at Christmas.

Further we believe that the Air Mail parcel rates to Ireland is often the inhibiting factor which the average citizen cannot afford.

We also maintain that as there is a high content of Irish extraction in the population of this country, such people should not be disadvantaged by not having access to such a service.

Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the Government will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners ‘ as in duty bound will ever pray.

The petition has over 200 signatures and I certify it is in conformity with the rules of the House. by Mr Viner.

Petition received.

International Air Fares

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

That the Government’s continued procrastination on the introduction of lower international air fares is causing confusion and concern within Australia’s travel industry.

That the Government’s decision not to make public the Report of the Review of International Civil Aviation Policy was further compounding the confusion and uncertainty and denying Australians right of access to information on the options available.

That the Government’s reluctance to allow lower priced international air fares was disadvantaging Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Report of the Review of International Civil Aviation Policy be released and lower international air fares be introduced as a matter of urgency.

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

Petition received.

page 1593

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) left Australia on 6 October to lead the Australian delegation to the18th South Pacific Conference in Noumea. He is expected to return on 12 October. During his absence, the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) will be Acting Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs.

page 1594

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1594

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to the statement by the then Minister for Supply on 14 September 1972 that ‘the radioactive material present in these areas’- that is, Maralinga and the Woomera controlled area- ‘has, in the main, a half life of some 15 or 20 years’? Has the Minister been advised that the plutonium 239 stored at Maralinga, of which he says there is in total some 20 kilograms, has a half life of approximately 24,400 years? Does the Minister know why the Parliament and the Australian people were misled by his Government colleague, who is now the Minister for Special Trade Representations?

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

– Yes, I have a recollection of a statement made in 1972 by the Minister to whom the honourable member referred. I think that the honourable gentleman could be persuaded to acknowledge the fact that I was a private member of Parliament in those days and not a ministerial colleague of the Minister. I cannot answer definitively the argument that the honourable gentleman presses upon me as to the apparent disparity in the half fife time cycle of plutonium which I understand to be of the order of 24,000 years. I will look at what my honourable friend said on that occasion. I am inclined to the view, if I may presume to express one to the honourable gentleman, that my honourable colleague in 1972 may have been referring to material other than plutonium. But I will make inquiries promptly and promptly inform the honourable gentleman of the results of those inquiries.

page 1594

QUESTION

EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS SCHEME

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce inform the House when the Government will be legislating to extend the export market development grants scheme to the travel and tourist industry? Is he at this stage able to give the House and the industry an indication of the way in which the scheme will operate?

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

– I welcome the question concerning the application of the export market development grants scheme to the tourist industry. This will be a major breakthrough for the tourist industry in Australia. The Government is hopeful that legislation relating to the scheme will be introduced during the current sittings of the Parliament. I am confident that the incentive will encourage the travel and tourist industry to increase its promotional efforts overseas, thereby significantly increasing the number of overseas visitors to Australia. Under the new legislation, the claimants will be able to receive grants of up to $100,000 per year, based on a grant rate of 70 per cent of eligible expenditure. The ceiling will be raised by an additional $25,000 for expenditure in connection with Commonwealth Government sponsored promotions. The types of expenditure which will be covered under the program include overseas market research, advertising and promotion literature, consultants’ fees, the cost of participating in overseas trade fairs, overseas representation -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– You are reading too quickly. Slow down.

Mr LYNCH:

– It would not be slow enough for the honourable member to understand. Also included are fares involved in overseas travel and the cost of bringing agents or buyers to Australia. The extension of the scheme will operate from 1 July this year, with the first payments being made in 1979-80. 1 recall that the cost to revenue will be of the order of $3.25m during the first year of the operation of the scheme. As I said earlier, it is a major breakthrough for the industry. It will provide the industry with very real encouragement and I believe will lead to a greater number of overseas visitors coming to Australia.

page 1594

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-In directing my question to the Minister for Defence I refer to his public statement last Thursday about a discrete mass of plutonium buried at Maralinga. Did the Minister present to Cabinet recently a submission warning of the threat posed by the possible theft by terrorists of this discrete mass of plutonium? Does the Minister accept this advice from his Department? If so, how does he explain today’s statement by the British High Commission that the so-called discrete mass of plutonium is buried in six separate steel containers in a concrete lined pit covered with steel plate under hundreds of tons of soil?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I have bad news for the honourable gentlemen. The assumption upon which his question is based is quite false.

page 1595

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Productivity and derives from a concern that may be an incomplete understanding in the community about the positive impact of industrial research and development. Can the Minister advise what steps he has taken to publicise the new industrial research and development grants? What impact is new technology developed and adopted as a result of industrial research and development likely to have on employment?

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

– I have taken extensive steps to communicate to industry the Budget allocation of $24m in this financial year for improved industrial research and development grants. In fact, I have sent out over 2,000 letters to companies which have previously received grants, I have made a number of Press releases in trade journals, and I am conducting at present seminars in all the capital cities, the first having been yesterday in Sydney, aimed at acquainting industry at first hand with the grants. We are effectively doubling the project grants and the commencement grants which help small businesses in particular to get new technology. We are introducing a new streamlined system that overcomes the problems which industry has complained of in the past. In addition, we are introducing new public interest grants to assist new industries to be created.

It is our concern that the debate on technology has looked at the more negative effects of technology on employment when there are many positive impacts, not only by way of making our existing industries more competitive with imports and more able to find and compete in export markets, but also by way of creating new industries. The InterScan example, of which the House is aware, is only one of those industries. We are concentrating very much on the creation of new industries by new technology as well as on the creation of new employment opportunities by developing more export-oriented industries. I believe that most of the concern is about the rate of change, and as a government we are doing all we can to assist Australian industry to be more competitive through improved innovation; not by slavishly adopting other people’s technology but by designing its own technology for its own requirements.

page 1595

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– When was the Prime Minister first advised that plutonium buried at Maralinga could be stolen by terrorists? Did he receive this advice from the Minister for Defence? Is he satisfied with the quality of the advice, and does he accept that all appropriate action has been taken to overcome the supposed terrorist threat? Is he convinced that the Minister is in full control of his Department?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The last part of the question hardly deserves an answer. Quite clearly the Minister has exhibited very great control over his Department. That does not really need stating. I was advised that there could be a problem in relation to a substance buried at Maralinga, I think in 1977, and the matter has been under examination since then. There have been communications also with the British Government in relation to it. The matter has come under Government discussion within the last few days, as I think is quite obvious to the whole House.

page 1595

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Can the Minister for Trade and Resources advise the House of any recent developments in the uranium industry overseas which have significance for the future development of the industry in Australia?

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

– In the Saskatchewan province of Canada an inquiry was recently set up under Justice Bayda to look into the prospects of developing what was known as the Cluff Lake deposit of uranium. This inquiry had terms of reference similar to those of the Fox inquiry in Australia. It was similar also to two other inquiries held in Britain which resulted in the Parker and Flowers reports. All of these inquiries which were conducted by judges found that the development of uranium ought to take place on a controlled basis and that the terms under which that development should take place should be much the same as the terms and conditions that were recommended by the Fox report. I think it is of interest to note that a number of major discoveries have been made in Saskatchewan, Canada. There is the Midwest Lake deposit, the size of which is about the same as that of the Ranger deposit. The inquiry which I mentioned will now enable the development of that deposit to go ahead. Key Lake deposit is another very substantial deposit. In addition, about 100 exploration companies are now operating in Saskatchewan in the search for uranium and many prospects are showing up. I think the significance of all of this is that the rest of the world is moving ahead fairly rapidly in developing uranium. I refer, of course, to those countries which have signs of its existence. Those people in Australia who say that we should not be developing uranium should get out of their Rip van Winkle state of mind and realise that we are living in a nuclear age, that any country which has uranium is developing it and that those countries which are looking for alternative sources of energy will have to rely heavily on nuclear power.

page 1596

QUESTION

OVERSEAS BORROWINGS

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does the fact that overseas borrowings, both received and announced, have amounted to more than $ 1,000m so far this financial year mean that total overseas borrowings will exceed last year’s total of about $ 1,800m? Further, will the debt servicing cost of Australia’s overseas borrowings for the last financial year alone average about $350m a year for the first half of the 1980s and will this double with this year’s borrowings? If so, are the Government’s overseas borrowings merely transferring the debt servicing problems created by the private capital inflow of the 1960s and . early 1970s from the present to the 1980s?

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

– I cannot confirm or deny some of the per capita calculations that the honourable member for Reid has made. I will do that and see whether there is anything useful that should be conveyed to him. His question gives me the opportunity of saying quite directly and quite simply that a substantial overseas borrowing program has been part of this Government’s external policies for some time. My colleague, the present Minister for Finance, announced a substantial borrowing program last year. The desirability and appropriateness of such a program was reaffirmed earlier this year in a statement that I made. It was reaffirmed in the Budget. It is entirely appropriate that a country such as Australia should on official account borrow substantial sums from overseas conformably with the type of economic strategy that we are pursuing at the present time.

page 1596

HANSARD’: STENOTYPE OPERATOR

Mr SPEAKER:

-I indicate to the House that a shorthand writer is about to sit at the table. It will be an unusual sight for honourable members because that shorthand writer has a machine. This will be the first occasion on which a machine has been used in the chamber. We have been accustomed to the shorthand writers taking their notes by hand. I am sure that all members of the House will welcome the shorthand reporter and hope that he will not feel nervous in any way.

page 1596

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of the proposals of the Chairman of the Industries Assistance Commission to close down the Melbourne and Sydney project branches of the IAC and to discontinue IAC public hearings in these two cities? Further, is the Minister aware of the grave concern felt by industry about these proposals because they will remove the IAC from all practical day-to-day contact with the vast bulk of Australian industry and impose substantial increased costs upon industry by way of additional travel to Canberra? Does the Minister agree that if staff ceiling reductions require a decrease in IAC staff, the decrease would be best implemented not in Melbourne or in Sydney but among the IAC branches located here in Disneyland?

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The matters referred to by the honourable member for Henty result from decisions taken by the Chairman of the Industries Assistance Commission. In taking those decisions he is acting under the powers he has as permanent head to make the best use of the resources available to him. I understand that the basis of the decision is that the IAC will be able to make better use of the manpower resources and that this will result in increased efficiency. I am also advised that the decisions taken by the Chairman of the IAC do not relate directly to the staff ceilings; it is more a matter of making the best use of the manpower resources. I would be concerned if, as the honourable member suggests, industry were not adequately served by the IAC and there were added costs and inconvenience to industry generally. I would hope that the increased efficiency as a result of the redeployment of manpower within the IAC would offset any inconvenience that would be caused by way of additional travel to Canberra. In the light of the question raised by the honourable member and the matters that he included in his question, I shall take the matter up with the Chairman of the IAC and seek an assurance that industry will be adequately served and not seriously inconvenienced and put to additional cost as a result of these movements.

page 1596

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister for Defence: In what respect was the assumption upon which the question asked by the honourable member for Parramatta was based, to use his term, quite false?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I am grateful to my honourable friend for asking that question. The basis upon which it was false is that no Cabinet submission prepared by me asserted that the plutonium buried at Maralinga was currently a terrorist threat.

page 1597

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT: TELEVISION PROGRAM

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I note that the Government has joined with the Channel 9 network in the development of a daily job show to assist the unemployed. Can the Minister inform us whether the show is successful and whether there are any plans for this program to be shown in other States?

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

– Yes. The Government, through the Commonwealth Employment Service, has worked closely with the Channel 9 network on the development of what is now called The Job Show which started in Melbourne and Sydney yesterday morning. Initial reports are that the show will achieve what it is setting out to do; that is to enable people in the work force who are looking for jobs to find the jobs most suited to them, and to bring those employers in the work force who have vacancies registered into contact with the people most suited to fill them. More importantly than that, by this new and imaginative program the services provided by the Commonwealth Employment Service are being brought to people in their own homes, to both employers and those seeking work, and I believe a greater understanding will emerge of the services provided by the CES in this way. Certainly the initial response after the first show was extremely encouraging. The show will run initially for six weeks. During and at the end of that time the Government will make an evaluation of its success and the results it has achieved. I hope that if that evaluation shows that it is successful, it might be possible to extend it to other capital cities. I shall certainly keep the honourable member and, indeed, all honourable members informed of the progress made in this new and imaginative project.

page 1597

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Prime Minister to the debate on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill on 3 May this year when the Opposition urged the establishment of a Nuclear Safeguards, Safety and Security Commission to set standards for aspects of safeguards, to make rules for physical security, to set physical safety standards, to issue and withdraw licences for construction and to carry out investigations and inquiries. In the light of recent events and the evident failure of Ministers, departments and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to establish and present the truth in respect of nuclear activities, I ask the Prime Minister whether he now acknowledges the urgent necessity for an independent authority to regulate nuclear activities. If so, what action does he propose?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman would know that as a result of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry the Government has instituted a number of measures to make sure not only that we contribute as fully as we can to international safety through nuclear safeguards but also that we fulfil to the utmost obligations within Australia. We are also, of course, having discussions with the States in relation to nuclear codes for industry to make sure that nuclear-related activities are undertaken in an absolutely safe manner.

I think that in part the assumptions underlying the question are not accurate. It is my advice that basically whatever information may be available to this Government in relation to matters at Maralinga was available also to the previous Labor Government. Therefore, the question is: What did the Labor Government think of these matters when they were in its area of concern? I am not aware that it took any action in relation to these matters. If there is now a matter that needs some action it is because of the vigilance of this Government and of the Minister for Defence, a vigilance that apparently was not shown under the previous Administration.

page 1597

QUESTION

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Home Affairs aware of legislation recently introduced into the United Kingdom Parliament protecting children from the exploitation of child pornography? Will the Minister give consideration to introducing similar legislation into this Parliament?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am aware that legislation was introduced into the United Kingdom Parliament to protect children from indecent photography and from the publication of photography of this description. I am also aware of the fact that a Bill of a similar description was introduced into the United States Congress, and I am not sure whether that has yet been passed. I can assure the honourable member that I shall investigate his suggestion. The honourable member will recall that last year when I was Attorney-General the question arose of child pornography in this country and that I met with the Ministers from around Australia for the purpose of preventing pornography of this description from being distributed. So far as I am aware, at a Federal level efforts have been made to prevent this sort of pornography from being imported into the country. As I indicated, I think on the occasion of that meeting, it is not possible, because it is impracticable, to prevent literature or photographs of this description from coming through the mail and then being used as the basis of publications in this country. But I can assure the honourable member that the matter will be given careful attention.

I remind honourable members also that next year is the International Year of the Child and that the Government has taken a number of initiatives in relation to that. There have been a number of opportunities for Ministers throughout the Commonwealth to meet and to plan efforts for that year. If we are able to produce legislation along these lines, I hope that it will be introduced into this Parliament and that it will have the support of both sides of the House.

page 1598

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES STATE ELECTION

Mr KERIN:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister regard the consistency of Labor support, as reflected in both the Werriwa by-election and the New South Wales election last weekend, as a rejection of his Budget and his economic policies and as a reflection of the lack of credibility in which he and his Government are held?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I regard the election result in New South Wales as a remarkable personal victory for Neville Wran.

Mr Cohen:

– As a bloody disaster.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Robertson will contain himself. I frequently have cause to reprimand him. I hope that that will cease.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I regard the election victory of the Labor Party in New South Wales as a remarkable personal victory for the Premier, Neville Wran. I think it is remarkable in a number of respects. It is remarkable because in most of the advertising material the name Labor’ did not appear. It said: ‘Return the Wran Government’. It did not say: ‘Return the Labor Government’. I think that honourable gentlemen opposite know quite well that the New South Wales Premier distanced himself to a very considerable extent from Australian Labor Party policies during the course of that election.

Mr Bourchier:

– You don’t blame him.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-No, I do not blame the Premier of New South Wales for that and quite obviously the people of New South Wales did not blame him for distancing himself from Labor policies.

I think it is worth noting that, because of the policies of this Government and because the tax reimbursement grants to the States have increased so much, not only the New South Wales Government but also other State governments have been able, over a period of two to three years, to reduce taxation and, at the same time, to make sure that they restrained expenditure and did not increase their charges to any great extent. Indeed, it is pleasing to see the New South Wales Premier following other policies of this Government, such as the abolition of death duties. That is something to which I understand the New South Wales Premier is now firmly committed.

There were a number of remarkable things about this election, apart from the Premier’s own performance, in that in a number of important respects he sought to embrace the policies of the Federal Government and to support those policies. In pre-prepared telecasts, the New South Wales Premier was able to say that he was at one with the Federal Government in its fight against inflation, whereas on other occasions he had said that it was a massive effort requiring hard decisions -

Mr Kerin:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order is that the Prime Minister is not addressing himself to the first half of my question, which was about the Werriwa byelection.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-On the other occasions the New South Wales Premier had pointed to the fact that for us to achieve the reduction in inflation that we achieved has resulted from a massive effort requiring a number of hard and difficult decisions. Indeed, I think the Premier of New South Wales has only had praise for the Commonwealth Government in that regard. One would expect the Federal Labor Party to try to take some pleasure from this election, but when it analyses the circumstances of the election I fear that time will prove that it can take very little pleasure from it. The particular circumstances, I repeat, are a remarkable personal achievement for Neville Wran and I do not believe that anyone should try to take that away from him.

page 1598

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the increasing dissatisfaction at the seeming tardiness of the Primary Industry Bank to bring its facilities to the client level will the Minister inform the House of the present state of establishment of the Bank and, more particularly, when its operations will begin?

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

-I share the honourable gentleman’s concern that the Primary Industry Bank has not yet started to function, although, of course, its offices have been opened, its staff has been appointed and its directorate has met. Over the course of time there has been considerable communication between the directorate of PIBA and the Government. There are now no matters outstanding. I believe from a report that I read over the weekend that there will be announcements this week about the terms of lending of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia and I expect that applications will be received for advances from that institution within the next couple of weeks.

I regret very much that it has taken so long but 1 think that primary producers need to realise that in PIBA there is a facility which is quite different from anything that has been provided previously. It does provide for longer term money than is available from any current lending institution. It provides a facility which is designed to try to cover something of the generation gap difficulty that exists in the rural sector. The generation gap there is that each primary producer going on to the land is required, within the term of his lifetime, to find finance to fund a fairly significant investment. Given inflation, the product of inflated land values and the extent of capitalisation in agriculture, this investment is one which most family farmers find more and more difficult to encompass under normal lending circumstances.

Additionally, over the last 10 years there has been an enormous increase in the funding, directly by the Commonwealth, of the primary producers’ debt. As of the moment something like 27 per cent of rural indebtedness is covered by funds directly advanced from the Commonwealth. This compares with something less than 2 per cent back in 1970. Of course, much of this is through rural reconstruction assistance but nonetheless it reflects the fact that a number of institutions, such as the pastoral houses, the insurance companies and the trustee houses, have withdrawn significant funds from the rural sector. This Government believes strongly in having . funding opportunities for Australia’s farmers to enable them to operate normally in the community. We believe that through the facility that will now be available in the Primary Industry

Bank, the family farmer will be able to look to the future with considerably more confidence than would otherwise have been possible.

page 1599

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION FOR LEGISLATION COMMITTEES

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

- Mr Speaker, perhaps as a means of welcoming you back to the House after your short overseas visit I can address my question to you. Are you aware that during your absence the first two Legislation Committees of the House of Representatives met and considered three Bills in what could be described as a successful introduction to the use of Legislation Committees- something which at first sight many of us would hope will become a regular feature in the proceedings of this House? During your visit to Israel, did you have the opportunity to see the facilities available for the operation of this type of committee in the Israeli Parliament? Is there anything that you can do to improve the totally inadequate committee rooms that are available to accommodate Legislation Committees so that they can function as the House intends them to function?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have had reports of the success of the Legislation Committees. I do know, because I arranged this before I left, where they met- that is, in committee rooms 1 and 2. 1 have always welcomed Legislation Committees but I have been very well aware of the totally inadequate facilities that we have in committee rooms 1 and 2. However, they are the only ones that we have that could be used. As this is a provisional parliament house there is very little I can do. I think that there will be a need for substantial changes before we can adequately house Legislation Committees. I think that the whole of the House would welcome Legislation Committees and seek to see their expansion and extension as a service to the Parliament. I did see in Israel the provisions made for similar sorts of committees, although the system there is different from ours. There the standing committees that examine legislation have committee rooms that are assigned permanently to them and to the staff of the committees, and they are quite adequate for the purpose. Westminster too, of course, has very much greater facilities. I will examine what can be done to improve the facilities in the committee rooms and I will report to the House.

page 1599

QUESTION

TOURIST INDUSTRY

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Bearing in mind the battle that has been raging in the Gold

Coast press over the past week concerning the vexed problem of penalty rates in the tourist industry, can the Minister tell us whether the Government really is concerned at the effects of penalty rates on the industry? If so, can the Minister indicate what this Government can do to help overcome the problem?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I welcome the question from the honourable member and the Press statement which I understand he issued on the Gold Coast recently. I personally share, as I am sure the Government shares, the conviction expressed in that Press statement. The present system of penalty rates applying to the tourist and accommodation industry is in fact completely incompatible with the nature of an industry which is a seven-day-a-week around-the-clock industry.

Mr Young:

– Are you on the committee of industry relations now?

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable member were concerned about unemployment, he might have some concern about penalty rates. The present system of penalty rates is crazy. I share, as I am sure the Government shares, the concern which the honourable gentleman has mentioned because the present system of penalty rates contributes very significantly indeed to higher costs in the industry, loss of investment and an overall reduction in the number of job opportunities. However, I must say that there is a limit to what this Government can do. The honourable gentleman would be aware of the negotiations that are taking place within the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission between the union involved and the employers and that those negotiations concern a consent determination. The union in question is the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia.

Although that matter is more properly within the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, as I understand it, what is taking place is a renegotiation of the award. According to my information, the employers have not seen fit to reopen the question of penalty rates. I think that that causes, not only within the industry but elsewhere in Australia, a great sense of concern that the employers are not prepared to stand up, not simply for their own interest but rather in terms of investment in the industry. At the same time that action which comes as a consequence of an arrangement in the consent award determination between employers and employees is adding very significantly to the burden of the loss of job opportunities in Australia.

page 1600

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. When did he first become aware of the discrete mass of plutonium at Maralinga? Who informed him of its presence? Did he at any stage form the opinion that that discrete mass might be susceptible to some form of terrorist activity? If so, what was the nature of the opinion that he formed? When did he form it? Does he still hold it?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– It is my hope that at an early time I will be able to make a definitive statement to the House on the issue concerning the Maralinga area. I have expressed that hope to the Leader of the House and, as soon as it may meet the convenience of the House, I will make that statement.

Mr Young:

– Well, straight away.

Mr KILLEN:

– If I may say to my honourable friend, I would indeed do that but it would not meet the convenience of the House. When this country acceded to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the first requirement which was cast upon the country was to enter into an agreement regarding safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency. That was in 1974. There were two requirements concerning safeguards pursuant to Part II of the IAEA agreement. The first requirement was that if any particular fissionable material was available, it had to be declared- I think that ‘declarable’ was the term used. Secondly, it had to be appropriately safeguarded ‘safeguardable’ was the term used. Following accession to the non-proliferation treaty and the IAEA safeguards agreement- I say this without any partisan feeling- the scientists working for the Government which was administering them, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, did not initially address themselves to the Maralinga area. That is the first observation I made in my statement. They did not do so for the good and simple reason that they took the view that there was nothing declarable at Maralinga pursuant to the IAEA safeguards agreement. They took the view also that there was nothing recoverable.

If the honourable gentleman looks at the language I have used in my public statement he will find the term ‘potentially recoverable’. I say to the honourable gentleman that there is a very respectable body of opinion that it is not potentially recoverable, ergo not declarable and not safeguardable. This is a matter for scientific inquiry.

The Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council, which is administered by my friend and colleague the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, reported on the need for scientific inquiry in 1976. The conclusion in its report was that a further inquiry should be made. That matter comes under the jurisdiction of my honourable friend, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development.

My responsibility in this matter, quite apart from sharing the corporate Government responsibility in the issue, is a ministerial responsibility with respect to the records concerning the Maralinga test of the 1 950s.

Having said that, I apologise to the honourable gentleman and to the House for having been so long. May I now answer the specific questions put to me. Early in 1977 I was informed of the existence of plutonium in a discrete form. Discrete form is not simply, as some have suggested, like the form of a golf ball or a half pound of butter. ‘Discrete’ means that the half kilogram that is there is individually and distinctly identifiable from the l9Vi kilograms which is spread throughout some 834 tonnes of rubble. As to the second specific question the honourable gentleman asked me, if the material is potentially recoverable- large as the odds may be- it may be possible at some distant time in the future for it to be recovered illegally. That was precisely my concern on this question. I wanted the reconnaissance of the Maralinga burial pits to be completed before any indication was given to the rest of the world and to some malevolent minds that exist in the world that that material was there.

1978 WHEAT HARVEST

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Because the High Court of Australia made a decision in favour of the Australian Wheat Board within weeks of the commencement of the 1978 harvest, can the Minister inform the House whether the Wheat Board intends applying the new powers given to it by the decision in an inflexible manner or whether there is any indication that the Board will adopt a softer line during the current harvest for people who have made firm commitments under the old arrangements?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

-It is true that as a result of the High Court decision the stabilisation arrangements introduced long since by this Parliament have been held to be constitutionally valid. In that they are supplemented by complementary legislation of each of the States they are not capable of being avoided by the application of section 92 of the Constitution. In response to that decision, numbers of wheat growers have suggested that perhaps there might be reason to change the legislation presently and apply the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission on wheat stabilisation. Let me assure wheat growers everywhere that it is complementary legislation of the Commonwealth and the States, not peculiarly that of this place, and that there is certainly no physical opportunity for any change to that legislation before the coming wheat selling season. If in the event of discussions apropos the IAC report it should be accepted that the report should be implemented in whole or in part, that will be a matter for further discussion and, of course, subsequent government decision and legislation, which will probably be introduced into this place early in 1979. The Wheat Board, therefore, has the responsibility of determining the basis upon which domestic wheat marketing will take place with respect to the 1978-79 season.

The Board, in my view, is correctly concerned with equity among growers. Those who have been trading privately across the border generally have avoided costs of about $16 per tonne. These costs relate to storage charges, the wheat research levy and the administration charges of the Board. At the same time there are a number of problems in respect of ensuring that those who trade across the border have a reasonable opportunity to deliver their products in an equitable way. It is necessary, for example, that the restrictive hours used by some of the grain elevator boards be looked at because at the moment private traders receive grain 24 hours a day. I hope that the Wheat Board might find some facility whereby the grain elevator boards will be able to receive grains over a wider period of time than has been possible in the past.

It is also true that off-grade wheats have created some problems. I think some facility needs to be established in this respect. The Wheat Board is looking at these and other issues. I understand it has still to determine finally its policy with respect to trading within Australia, but I have little doubt that the product of the High Court decision is that wheat growers throughout Australia will receive significantly more for wheat traded domestically than has been the case in the last few years, and this is something that I think every wheat grower generally would welcome.

page 1602

QUESTION

FIRE PROTECTION MEASURES IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

-On 27 September last the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) referred to the question of fire protection measures in Parliament House and asked what action, if any, had been taken on a report that had been submitted on this matter. Following a request from the Joint House Department for a survey to be made of the fire risk in Parliament House, a number of inspections of the building were made by the Fire Commissioner and other officers of the Canberra Fire Brigade. The Fire Commissioner then submitted a comprehensive report on fire protection and safety measures in Parliament House. The honourable member for Corio referred to a comment in the report which indicated that this building could be brought to a satisfactory level of fire protection only by razing it to the ground and rebuilding it. For the information of all honourable members, I quote the relevant section of the report. It states:

Before proceeding further it should be mentioned that to implement adjustments within this complex, necessary for the building to comply rigidly with the requirements of to-day, would be tantamount to demolition and reconstruction. Consequently when submitting recommendations relative to the upgrading of buildings some latitude has to be extended. Before any concession is permitted however, the situation is closely evaluated to determine the possible effect with regard to the safety of occupants and overall fire safety within the building.

Recognising that a new and permanent Parliament House cannot be built overnight and further recognising that while it is being built fire protection is essential against the considerable risk of loss of life, the report recommends that the following immediate action be taken as an essential minimum program:

  1. The compartmentation of the building by the installation of fire rated partitions and also of early warning devices.
  2. The extension of the fire sprinkler system to all areas of the building not now so protected.
  3. Miscellaneous work such as the installation of energised lights, fire extinguishers and signs.

Because of the limitations imposed by the sittings of Parliament it would be physically impossible to carry out this work in one continuous operation. So it has been programmed over a threeyear cycle. Item 1 will be commenced in the current financial year and item 2 in the two following years. The installation of signs, modern-type extinguishers and energised lights is proceeding and will be completed by the end of the forthcoming summer recess. I table a copy of the report.

page 1602

AUSTRALIAN PLAGUE LOCUST COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Plague Locust Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 977.

page 1602

POULTRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965, 1 present the annual report of the operation of that Act for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 1602

TOBACCO INDUSTRY TRUST ACCOUNT

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

– Pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955, 1 present the annual report on the tobacco industry trust account for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1602

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the interim annual report of the Australian Dairy Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1602

REPORT OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

Mr HOWARD (BennelongTreasurer)Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Insurance Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 1 978, together with a companion volume of selected statistics on the general insurance industry for the year ended 3 1 December 1 977.

page 1602

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY ENDOWMENT FUND

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Science and Industry Endowment Act 1 926, 1 present the audit of accounts of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1602

SERVICES CANTEENS TRUST FUND

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947, 1 present the annual report by the trustees of the services canteens trust fund for the year ended 3 1 December 1977, together with the report of the AuditorGeneral required under section 35 of the above Act.

page 1603

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, I present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 3 1 December 1977.

page 1603

REPORT OF INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission interim report on carpets, carpeting, et cetera, together with correspondence between the Chairman of the IAC and myself relating to this report.

page 1603

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the recommendations of the Queensland and the Tasmanian State Grants Commissions on financial assistance to local government in those States for 1978-79. These recommendations have already been made available to honourable members from Queensland and Tasmania respectively?

page 1603

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1 978.

States Grants (Home Care) Amendment Bill 1978.

Wheat Tax Amendment Bill 1 978.

Wheat Research Amendment Bill 1 978.

Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill 1978.

Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill 1978.

Departure Tax Bill 1 978.

Departure Tax Collection Bill 1978.

Apple and Fear Stabilization Amendment Bill 1978.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Amendment Bill 1978.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Amendment Bill 1978.

page 1603

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE FAMILY LAW ACT

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a message from the Senate concurring with the modifications made by the House of Representatives to the resolution of the Senate relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the provisions and the operation of the Family Law Act 1 975.

page 1603

MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received advice from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of the following changes in membership of the following committees:

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence

Mr Lusher has been nominated to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Thomson.

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs

Mr Katter has been nominated to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Thomson.

Standing Committee on Expenditure

Mr Braithwaite has been nominated to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Lloyd.

page 1603

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS

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

– I move:

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-This motion gives us the opportunity to explain to the House how once again the conventions of this House have been broken by the Government in bringing on this debate before the Parliamentary Labor Party can meet.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now 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.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 30

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There being 71 ayes and 30 noes the question is resolved in the affirmative with an absolute majority.

page 1605

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 1978 [NO. 2]

page 1605

INCOME TAX (INDIVIDUALS) BILL 1978

page 1605

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY BILL 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 28 September, on motions by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Declaration of Urgency

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

– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 (No. 2), the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1978 (No. 2), the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1978, the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1978, and the Health Insurance Levy Bill 1978.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the Bills be considered urgent Bills’.

Question put-

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

AYES: 70

NOES: 30

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the time allotted for all stages of the Bills be until 9. IS p.m. this day, and

That the question be now put.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-This is an abuse of parliamentary privilege on a motion of this nature.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the House moved the motion for the allotment of time and went on to move: ‘That the question be now put’. Unfortunately I could not accept that motion because I had not first put the motion. The question is that the motion for the allotment of time be agreed to.

Mr SCHOLES:

-This is an abuse of parliamentary time. Income tax measures are some of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the Parliament. The Government is ashamed to debate its own measures.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 30

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-At the outset of these proceedings I express on behalf of the Opposition our great concern at the way in which this debate has been brought on. There Has been no discussion with the Opposition about not going ahead with the matter of public importance and also, the way in which these Bills have been brought on today without giving the Opposition time to put them before a party meeting, breaches the normal understandings of the way in which Bills will be handled before this House. There has been no explanation of why this is being done. Is it because the Government is so embarrassed about its own legislation that it does not want to have it debated or to have it on the Notice Paper any longer than is absolutely necessary? This would seem to be the case. To say the least it is utterly discourteous of the Government to give us no reason whatever for proceeding in this fashion. The Bills which have been brought before the House in this way give effect to the Government’s income tax amendments announced in the Budget and therefore one can understand why the Government is so anxious to get them through the House and out of the way.

They are not exactly the highpoint of the Government’s political standing in this country at the present time. The effect of these Bills is to increase considerably the income tax burden on Australian taxpayers, particularly upon those who are least able to bear that burden. The Opposition approaches these Bills with absolute opposition to many of the proposals contained therein. In our view they amount to a cynical repudiation of past promises to the Australian people. In their overall effect they are economically damaging and will further intensify the recession. They are also quite inequitable in that their major impact is on low and middle income earners. The principal feature of these Bills is the imposition of an income tax surcharge for this financial year in that there is to be an increase in the rate of tax applying to income taxpayers in this country of21/2 per cent from 1 November to give effect to a 11/2 per cent increase for the whole financial year. This measure will raise some $562m in this financial year and is therefore an important measure.

Consideration of this surcharge reveals three major characteristics of this Government: Firstly, its utter dishonesty and untrustworthiness; secondly, the absurdity of its economic policy; and thirdly, its absolute determination to redistribute income on a more inequitable basis. In regard to the dishonesty aspect, this Government has emphasised over the last year- certainly in the Budget of 1977 and in the period thereafter, right up until the elections- that the people of Australia could look forward to very substantial tax cuts. In the Budget last year the then Treasurer proclaimed the new tax arrangements as ‘the most revolutionary change yet made to Australia’s system of income tax ‘. He also claimed that ‘ the new system goes a long way to restoring the monetary incentive for individuals to work and work harder, to take on added responsibility, to work overtime’ and so on. In the end result, this great new system, this revolutionary change, the greatest revolution in the tax system since Federation, lasted only half a year. The tax cuts came in in February of this year and in August of this year the Government announced their total abolition for many taxpayers and a very substantial reduction for the rest.

However, it was not only a matter of what was said at the Budget last year. If there is one pan of the election last year which would stick in the mind of each person in this country it would be that the Government parties went to the polls in 1977 saying to the Australian people: ‘If you elect us you will get substantial tax cuts’. The Government went out of its way to embed that in the mind of each voter in this country. No Government spokesman spoke without mentioning that in the course of the election campaign. It was the focal point for its advertising campaign. I am sure everyone recalls the enormous advertisements that the Government parties had in the newspapers with hands showing fistfuls of money, fourteen $5 I think were counted, and the caption that this represented the Government’s tax cuts. These are the kinds of things that were done at that time. It was embedded in the mind of the electorate that a return of this Government meant substantial tax cuts. These were grossly exaggerated but the eventful impact was probably to make sure people understood that point.

To make sure the electorate understood what it meant for it the Government parties established a ‘dial a tax cut’ system in every capital city. You could ring a number and find out what your tax cuts were going to be. Many people did that. I understand some quarter of a million people rang those numbers to find out what their tax cuts were going to be. This was a very important issue in the last election. Now what has happened? This Government has decided totally to repudiate its promise to the Australian people, a promise which was the key point in its election policy last year, by imposing an income tax surcharge which will totally wipe out the tax cuts for the majority of taxpayers, particularly those taxpayers who are lower middle income earners, and substantially reduce the tax cuts for the rest. To demonstrate this point, I wish to have incorporated in Hansard two tables relating to the 1 February tax savings to the tax increases which will come as a result of the imposition of this tax surcharge.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Mr WILLIS:

-These tables show for taxpayers without dependants and for taxpayers with a dependent spouse the result of the imposition of the income tax surcharge and compare that with the saving to taxpayers at various income levels as a result of the tax cuts introduced in February. They show that taxpayers in the range of $1 14 a week to $238 a week- some 55 per cent of all taxpayers- will totally lose their tax cuts which were brought in in February this year in that the increases in their taxes from 1 November will be more than what they had their tax reduced by in February of this year. It is a tremendously important step that this Government is taking, a step which not only repudiates its number one election promise but also represents, in respect of many taxpayers, a substantial impost on their tax liability.

That is not the end of the story because when the tax cuts were announced we were told that there was going to be only half tax indexation; as the Government was being so generous in giving these tax cuts it could not afford to go ahead with full tax indexation, there would only be half tax indexation. The tables do not take account of the fact that there is only half tax indexation introduced nor of the fact that half of this tax indexation- so called- really only becomes onethird tax indexation because in the price index used by the Government for tax indexation purposes there were taken out a number of price increases due to devaluation and indirect tax increases before the Government halved that to get the tax indexation factor. It finished up being one-third tax indexation. These tables do not even take account of that. When we take account of the fact that the tax indexation factor was much less than full indexation, the tax payers generally are even worse off than is shown in these tables. This represents a massive fraud on the Australian electorate. It is an utter repudiation of promises made in the last Budget and, most particularly, at the last election. It emphasises the total untrustworthiness of this Government. One just cannot believe anything it says. We have seen example after example of broken promises from this Government following the elections of 1975 and 1977, but the surcharge is the most blatant and most cynical of all those broken promises. It is simply no defence to claim that the surcharge is only temporary and that it is just something which is to apply for a few months only. How do we know whether that is true?

Mr Bradfield:

– It is in the legislation.

Mr WILLIS:

– Sure, it is in the legislation, but the Government can easily introduce new legislation; that is nothing. We have only the word of the Government for it, and the Government’s word is worth nothing because we cannot trust anything it says. If the Government says to us that this is only a temporary surcharge, on its past record the most likely assumption we can make is that in fact it is going to be a permanent feature, because every time it says that something is so we find out that it is quite the opposite. Let us look at the promise to support wage indexation, the promise to retain Medibank and the myriad other promises which have been discarded by this Government. We just cannot take the word of this Government on anything and, as I say, this surcharge is the most blatant example of the cynicism of this Government. In being so cynical it is demeaning not only itself- goodness knows that it is doing that- but also the parliamentary institution and the parliamentary process.

Mr Baillieu:

– Oh, come on.

Mr WILLIS:

-It is. The Government did it in no mean order in 1975. By being such cynical people Government members demean the whole process of parliamentary democracy and make this rather fragile flower even more fragile and liable to permanent damage in the future.

As I mentioned, another aspect of this income tax surcharge which reveals the Government’s characteristics is the absurdity of its economic policies. The tax surcharge will further depress demand. Anyone can understand that if we take $560m off the Australian people they are going to have that much less money to spend and, therefore, there is going to be less consumer demand. The savings ratio is about IS per cent. Therefore, 85 per cent of that $560m would have been spent if the Government had not taken it off the people and would have had the effect on the economy of increasing economic activity and at least doing something to arrest the growth of unemployment.

Mr Baillieu:

-What about the deficit?

Mr WILLIS:

– I will be coming to the deficit. The Government’s policy is clearly depressing demand; that is obvious. Professor Neville at the University of New South Wales, who is one of our foremost fiscal analysts, has assessed that this income tax surcharge and the associated tax measures contained in these Bills will depress gross non-farm product by 0.6 per cent, which is a substantial amount given that the Government is hoping- I emphasise the word ‘hoping’ as distinct from the word ‘estimating’- for a growth of something like 4 per cent. The loss of 0.6 per cent is an important loss and is something which this Government seems not to have taken into account. It is tremendously important that we get an increase in consumer demand if we are to have economic recovery. Consumer demand represents about 60 per cent of total demand in the country. With the government sector being reduced in real terms- that is an important area of demand but there is no growth there- with investment in the private dwelling sector of demand being at an abysmally low level and with exports being low, where are we to get economic growth if it does not come from the consumer sector? Perhaps it may come from investment in fixed capital equipment, but that is only one sector of demand. We must have growth in consumer demand if we are doing all these other things. But this tax surcharge and the associated tax measures make that much less likely to happen. Therefore, this is an enormous contradiction in this Government’s economic policies. The Government’s arguments to the contrary are quite pathetic. It is claimed in Statement No. 2 of the Budget Papers that this tax surcharge will have only a marginal effect on consumption, but there is no substantiation of that; it is a mere assertion. In talking to the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures two days after he brought down his Budget the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said:

I would like to emphasise my belief that industry should not fear its effects upon consumer demand. Firstly, it is temporary, and the necessary legislation will bring it to an end on 30 June next; there is no reason, therefore, why it should have an ongoing effect on consumer confidence or expectations.

The reality is that consumer confidence and expectations have been crashing all through this calendar year. Since the beginning of this year the indexes of consumer sentiment published by the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic Research have been showing a continual decline. The growth in retail sales has been minimal, so there has been no sign of consumer confidence. In fact quite the contrary is the case. Since the Treasurer brought down his Budget we have seen a further decline in consumer confidence to the lowest point in ages. I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review of about a week ago headed ‘Consumer confidence down sharply in August ‘. It reads:

Consumer confidence, which has been on a downturn since January, suffered a further sharp drop in August, according to the latest survey by the University of Melbourne ‘s Institute of Applied Economic Research. The August drop was the sharpest ever recorded since the institute first began its survey in early 1973 . . . The institute’s index of consumer sentiment dropped a substantial 12.2 points between the July and August surveys to its present level of 9 1 .2. This is the second lowest reading recorded by the Institute . . . The survey shows a major downturn in consumer confidence in Australia in 1978 . . .

So we can see from this that it is absurd to suggest that the Budget and the income tax surcharge would not damage consumer confidence. They have had a disastrous effect on it and, therefore, on consumer demand and on the prospects of economic recovery in this country. This is a tremendously serious matter which we have under discussion. This Government, I think, has failed abysmally to understand the effects of its economic policies. It seems surely most unlikely that consumers will spend strongly when real disposable income is being reduced by the tax surcharge and their confidence has been shattered.

The Government’s reason for proposing the income tax surcharge is that it says it has to get the deficit down, but this Government has a deficit phobia. Of course, deficits are not unimportant if they spiral out of control. That has important implications for monetary policy, but it does not automatically follow that an increase in the deficit necessarily means an increase in inflation. Indeed, last year we saw the deficit increase by $600m, but there was a very substantial decline in inflation. Inflation fell from 13.3 per cent in 1976-77 to 7.9 per cent in 1977-78, and that was with an increase in the deficit of $600m. So it is absurd to argue, as the Government does, that there is some sort of black box relationship between the deficit and inflation and that if the deficit goes up a few hundred million it will mean an automatic increase in inflation. It just does not work like that. The simplistic notion that the Government has is just utterly without foundation. The reason that last year’s deficit blew out from $2.2 billion, for which the Government budgeted, to $3.3 billion was that the economy was more recessed than the Government expected and, therefore, there was a great shortfall in revenue. That is why we have such a big increase in the deficit.

What the Government is doing now with this income tax surcharge and other measures is squeezing the economy further, trying to raise revenue to reduce the size of the deficit, but it is making it more likely that the deficit will blow out again because revenue will fall short through lack of economic growth. Therefore, next year there will again be a blown out deficit, lower levels of economic activity and more pressure to increase taxes to try to get the deficit down. We are in an absurd situation. It is a vicious cycle of deflation which will ruin this country if the Government does not mend its ways in the near future.

Another aspect of this Government’s characteristics which has been revealed by the income tax surcharge is its determination to redistribute income more inequitably. The February tax cuts, as I have already mentioned, were highly inequitable. The tables which I have incorporated in Hansard show that taxpayers on average weekly earnings of around $200 saved only $3.07 a week as a result of the tax cuts in February of this year, compared with tax savings for people on $2,000 a week of $1 12 a week. Just think of that for a moment. In February of this year the Government gave a person on $2,000 a week a tax saving of $ 112 a week, but a person on $200 a week- round about average weekly earningswas given a tax saving of a whole $3 a week. So, quite clearly, the Government was biased very much towards the high income groups. This is shown up by the fact that 40 per cent of the total benefit of the tax cuts went to the top 10 per cent of income earners. In fact, 15 per cent of the benefit went to the top 1.4 per cent of taxpayersthose earning $30,000 a year and over, or at least those declaring to the Commissioner of Taxation that they were earning that much. So we can see that these tax cuts have been highly inequitable in that they have given a vast amount in tax savings to the people on the higher income levels and miserable amounts to the people on the lower income levels. That is the effect of the February tax cuts. Now that this tax surcharge is being introduced we find that it has its major impact on the people on lower incomes and its least impact on the people on higher incomes. So the higher income earners have saved again. Everything this Government does is tinged by this process of redistributing income from the low and middle income earners to the high income earners. It is not just so with taxes: It applies in a whole range of areas. But it is particularly noticeable with taxes.

As I have mentioned, the tax surcharge is highly inequitable. The table that I mentioned shows that all taxpayers earning between $114 and $238 a week lose all their 1 February tax cuts, whereas a person on $2,000 a week, with a tax saving of $ 1 12 a week after the February tax cuts, will still gain $62 a week after the tax surcharge has been imposed. So he is much better off than a person on a lower income level. The combined effect of the tax cuts and the tax surcharge is to leave him in a much improved position compared with his position before the tax cuts. But for the ordinary wage and salary earners in this country, this is not the case: They are worse off than before. A massive redistribution is involved in these tax cuts and the tax surcharge. This is extremely revealing of the Fraser Government’s characteristics and it shows why people are turning away from the Government in droves.

There are a number of other measures in this legislation to which I will quickly refer. The taxation of annual leave and long service leave on a new basis is a very important measure, and one which is strongly opposed by the Opposition. What is proposed by this legislation is that all annual leave payments on termination of employment after 15 August will be taxed at the rate of 33Vi per cent and all long service leave that accrues after 1 5 August will be taxed at the rate of 3 3 ¥i per cent when paid on termination of employment. The present position is that such payments are only taxable to the extent of 5 per cent of them being included in assessable income for tax purposes. The result of changing the legislation in this way is to gain a lot of revenue for the Government. The annual leave change will raise $70m in revenue this financial year. The long service leave measure will raise only some $6m because this measure is being phased in.

For the individuals involved, the impact is very important. I take as an example the worker on $200 a week who has his employment terminated and who leaves with four weeks annual leave being paid to him. His four weeks annual leave entitles him to payment of the sum of $800. Previously that was taxable at the rate of 5 per cent and he would have paid $13 in tax on that sum. Now he will have to pay $267 in tax on that amount. That is a very dramatic change and one which will greatly disadvantage many workers who commonly leave their jobs and go to new jobs. I instance in particular workers in the building and construction industry. The reason given for the change is that the Government sees the current tax law as encouraging the non-taking of leave during a person’s working life. Many workers do not take their leave when it falls due- there is certainly some truth in that- but if the Government is really concerned about the health of workers and wants to make sure that they take their leave when it is due so that they do not overwork themselves and so on, why does it not go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the other industrial tribunals and seek amendments to the awards to ensure that the workers take their leave within a certain time? Why mess around with the taxation system to try to induce people to do so? It is simply not going to get to the heart of the matter anyway. The Government is only taxing leave which is taken on the termination of employment. If one stays with the one employer all one’s life and accumulates vast amounts of leave, there will not be any tax levied on that leave until one’s retirement. What this tax does, of course, is tax heavily those who commonly swap from job to job. As I mentioned previously, this is particularly true in the building and construction industries. Building and construction workers often go into an unemployment situation, particularly in present circumstances and in going into an unemployment situation previously they had at least their pro rata leave entitlement to take with them. Now, of course, they will be taking with them leave that is payable at the same rate of tax as would be payable if they were at work. There have been a number of examples of that but I do not have the time to go into them.

Another important point is the lack of superannuation for wage earners. This kind of approach has its major impact on blue collar workers. These are the people who have little superannuation provision. Mostly superannuation applies to people who are white collar workers. What workers of this kind take out when they leave their jobs and retire is their accumulated leave. This Government is now saying to them: ‘Sorry, but that accumulated leave which you were going to take into your retirement and on which you previously paid little tax is now going to be really solidly taxed’. The tax rate will increase twenty-fold. That is what is being done. Therefore it is having a major effect on blue collar workers.

I shall quickly mention some other matters. One is the abolition of home loan interest as a tax deduction. Absolutely no reason has been given for doing so. Its major impact is on low income earners. The tax deduction is phased out by the time an income reaches $14,000 a year, but it is not to be replaced by anything. The home savings grants are being postponed. They are getting harder to obtain. The effect on the home buyer, particularly a low income earner who wishes to buy a modest home- it would have to be modest if he is buying a house on an income of something like $120 a week- is substantial. Assuming that a low income earner were paying something like 13 per cent of his income on a home loan and that 90 per cent of that was for interest, he would be losing some $3 a week as a result of this tax measure. That is an important tax impost on a worker at that level of income and it makes it infinitely more difficult for workers at lower income levels to obtain a house.

Similarly, the removal of the tax exemption from the Commonwealth post-graduate awards is something which this Government has rushed into without proper consideration. Such awards are currently at a subsistence level. They have fallen far behind the rate of inflation. If they had been adjusted for inflation since 1970 they would be more than $1,000 higher than they are at present. But this Government intends to tax them just the same. This means that a research worker with a post-graduate award will be paying something like $70 a year in tax which he would not have paid previously. Such people also will be adversely affected by the health insurance measures. Previously, they never paid the health insurance levy because they paid no tax but they had a 75 per cent cover under the health insurance scheme. Now they still will not be paying any levy but they will have a cover of only 40 per cent. So on that side of things they have been badly affected as well.

If there is to be taxation of post-graduate grants- one could see some argument for it if the grants were large enough- the amount of the grant should be increased. There is no means test on these grants. Therefore if we are to tax these grants- I can see some argument for it- we should do so only if there is a substantial increase in the amount of the grant to make it a living wage. But we should not be taxing on a level of real grant which has fallen way behind the rate of inflation.

The averaging of income for primary producers is one aspect of this Budget which we support. What is involved is simply the restriction of the amount of non-farm income which primary producers can include for averaging purposes. The Opposition supports the ‘measures that are being taken in this regard. It clearly is cutting down on a form of tax avoidance by preventing Pitt Street and Collins Street farmers from utilising their farming activities to gain a substantial tax benefit in respect of their non-farm income. We support that measure. One could argue perhaps that the $5,000 level for non-farm income is a little too high, but in general we regard this as a worthwhile proposal. The Opposition strongly opposes the abolition of the rebate for a dependant residing overseas. The Government is proposing to say to migrants in this country that the tax concession which they received previously in respect of funds sent overseas to look after their dependants in their country of origin is now to be removed. This proposal will increase tax revenue by about $20m a year. It means that the migrants of this country will be paying to the Government in 1978-79 $20m which they did not have to pay in 1977-78. I understand that this has caused considerable concern in the migrant community in this country.

Finally, may I quickly mention the proposal to extend the gift provisions of the tax law to the World Wildlife Fund of Australia. Why is this being done in respect of that particular charity? We have no strong objections to it but no reason has been given. This Government just governs as though it does not give a damn about the people of Australia, It does not say why it is doing things and in this respect it nominates one charity out of the blue. Is this because a particular person got to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or perhaps to the Treasurer (Mr Howard)? We do not know. We have not been told. What is wrong with all the other worthwhile charities? Why is this particular one mentioned?

These Bills demonstrate, as no other Bills have done, that this is a government lacking enormously in principle and it is a government which is basically dishonest and untrustworthy. They demonstrate the paucity of its economic policies and they demonstrate its utter lack of concern to bring about a more equitable society in this country.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

– It is well known that it is many times easier to criticise than it is to be constructive. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) spent 30 minutes criticising this legislation. He did not offer any concrete suggestions as to what the Labor Party would do. I want to be constructive but firstly, since the honourable member for Gellibrand spoke about the ‘nasty’ things that this Government has been doing- obviously he has had a ‘great’ lesson in economics since he has been a member of the Opposition because he appears to have learned little- I would like briefly to mention some of the things that the Whitlam Labor Government did during its term in office. Firstly, receipts from personal income tax were raised by an unprecedented 89 per cent during the first two years that Labor was in office. That is not a bad sort of a record for a party whose spokesman on economic matters claims in this place that we are over-taxing the people, that we are thrusting great burdens on them. Indirect taxes were increased in each of the three Labor Budgets. A massive increase of $602m in indirect taxes and levies, excluding the coal export levy, was imposed by a Labor Government. Last but not least- it is very important to remind the people of Australia of this- the Labor Government specifically refused to introduce tax indexation for individuals or for companies. That is very important. The tax indexation legislation is the most important piece of tax legislation introduced by this Government in the 2lA years it has been in office.

Indexation, which would have returned tax to all the people of Australia, was refused by that Labor Government. Yet the honourable member for Gellibrand had the hide and the audacity to stand up in this place and say that this Government is over-taxing the Australian people.

As the honourable member for Gellibrand broadened the debate into the general economic area, I would like to make a few points. I am at a loss to understand the conflict that has developed in the Opposition’s economic policies. One of the Opposition’s spokesmen on economic matters stands up in this place and says that the Government should spend more money and not worry about a deficit, yet today another member of the Opposition sought to introduce as a matter of public importance a discussion on concern about the Government’s overseas borrowings. I do not know how a Labor government could blow out a deficit and at the same time not borrow more money overseas. Obviously a Labor government would return to the printing of money.

We are debating five Bills and they are all machinery Bills. They have been spoken about in August in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) but nevertheless some of them are of extreme significance and importance. I would like to deal with those last; I would first like to mention three of the Bills briefly. One of the Bills before the House is a Bill to rectify a particular aspect of tax indexation which disadvantaged a small group of people. It rectifies the position for a small group of people whom the honourable member for Gellibrand claimed were disadvantaged as a result of tax indexation. It is true that when the Government brought down the 50 per cent tax indexation in conjunction with the threetier revised scale introduced in February, a small number of people would have had to pay marginally more tax. At that time the Government promised that no person would be disadvantaged. One of the five Bills we are debating today removes that disadvantage. Provision is made in one of these Bills so that a small number of people who were marginally disadvantaged will not have to pay more tax than other people.

The Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill is a machinery Bill to increase company tax by lh per cent in line with the 1% per cent temporary surcharge that unfortunately has been imposed on people who operate under the pay-as-you-earn tax system. The third Bill I want to mention is the Health Insurance Levy Amendment Bill which provides for the levy to cease from 1 November. I am very pleased to see the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) sitting at the table. The Australian people are now starting to understand this proposal. They are now starting to realise that the abolition of the health insurance levy, which, of course, will return 2Vi per cent tax to many people, in conjunction with the new system that has been instituted, is of great benefit and is a great step forward by this Government for the Austraiian people.

Mr Hunt:

– It puts money back in their pockets.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– As the Minister for Health says, it puts money back into the pockets of the Australian people. I am pleased to say that despite all the confusion over the last month or so the Austraiian people are now realising the advantages of this new system. It is appropriate that in one of the Sydney newspapers today, the Sydney Morning Herald, the headline on the front page reads ‘Fund’s new medical table halves old rates’. In other words, a particular fund has been able to halve the old rate that was offered to its members. The article reads:

A reduction in medical insurance rates of $2.80 a week for a family was announced yesterday by the first major NSW health fund to have new tables approved.

The article goes on to say:

It has been able to cut by more than half its present charge of $5.50 because of the new Federal Government benefit of 40 per cent of scheduled fees announced with the Budget and to apply from next month.

I am pleased to see that people are starting to understand the new scheme. I am pleased also to support the legislation which as from 1 November no longer makes it necessary for people to pay a 2te per cent levy in addition to their tax.

One of the remaining two Bills was dealt with at length by the honourable member for Gellibrand, as one would expect him to do. He was really able to get stuck into this one. He said that this Government is removing the 5 per cent tax on lump sum payments for annual leave and superannuation. Of course, he can jump on the bandwagon and make that statement. This Bill will return $60m a year to the Government but I think it needs a little bit of explanation. Many people came to my office complaining about this legislation but obviously they did not understand it. Their expectations of what this legislation is going to do did not turn out to be so bad after all when it was explained to them. First of all let me state this. It was never intended that people should accumulate annual leave. People were to take leave annually and have a rest from their normal employment. I think that is the purpose of annual leave. I am surprised to hear a Labor Party supporter speaking against this legislation because I know that firmly embodied in Labor’s policy is the principle that people should take their annual leave. In fact this legislation stops annual leave from being converted to a lump sum payment on retirement. I feel sorry for those people who have been caught up under this legislation but annual leave was meant to have been taken and they should have taken it. The news about long service leave, superannuation and other lump sum payments that are made on retirement is not so bad at all. Only 5 per cent of long service leave that accumulated up to 15 August is to be included in a person’s taxable income. Only that long service leave which accumulates after 15 August is to be taxable at the rate of 3314c in the dollar, which is the base rate of the new scale.

Superannuation is not mentioned in this Bill because no alteration has been made to it, but it forms part of lump sum payments on retirement. Another section of this Bill deals with other payments. I mention this because I have certainly had deputations, particularly from people who are employed in the Local Government Association where it is normal for a gratuity of one week’s payment for every year of service to be paid on retirement. I am pleased to see that this legislation ensures that that is treated not as normal annual holiday pay which is fully taxed but as another form of accumulated long service leave. The effect of this Bill on that payment is certainly not nearly as severe as those people had originally thought.

The fifth Bill which is embodied in this legislation deals with the 1V4 per cent surcharge and in particular is related to pay-as-you-earn tax. It is clearly embodied in the legislation that that surcharge expires on 30 June 1979. It is to be applied for only 12 months. The honourable member for Gellibrand asked: ‘How honest is the Government’. I think that this Government is very honest. I am proud to be part of it. I would not be part of a government that was not honest. The time for the application of this surcharge is embodied in the legislation. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer have made statements about it. What more can we do to convince people that it is necessary to apply this Vi per cent surcharge for only 12 months? I do not think there is any doubt about the situation.

The Bill to which I am now referring, the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1978, that legalises this surcharge also alters two other tax rates. For instance, where a person’s income exceeds $16,608 the legislation alters the tax scale to 47.5 per cent, and where a person’s income exceeds $33,216 the legislation alters the tax scale to 61.5 per cent. I think that people on high incomes such as those should have to pay a high rate of tax. I do not think, as the Opposition spokesman suggested, that this Government is disadvantaging people on low incomes.

In the final part of my address I come back to the generosity that has been extended through the indexation that has been introduced by this Government; indexation that, over the last three years, has returned to the Austraiian people approximately $ 1,000m for each year, that is, a total of $3,000m. Only at the weekend I took out and studied some figures on income tax collections which went back to the years when the Labor Government was in office. I worked out the increase in total tax collections over the previous years, adjusted for movements in the consumer price index. In 1973-74 when the total tax collections were almost $ 11,000m, the total increase in tax collections over the previous year was 28.6 per cent, and 13.9 per cent after adjusting it for movements in the CPI. Yet in the last three years, after adjusting for movements in the CPI, the increases in taxation collected over the previous years were a plus of 5.8 per cent for 1975-76, a plus of 2.5 per cent for 1976-77 and a minus of one per cent for 1977-78. 1 seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have this rates scale incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Are you seeking leave?

Mr BRADFIELD:

– Yes, I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– Did you just read it out?

Mr BRADFIELD:

– Only some of it.

Mr Young:

– Read the rest.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– And not incorporate it?

Mr Young:

– I have not seen it.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– Very well. This scale shows clearly that in 1973-74 the increased tax collection over 1972-73, after the adjustment for the movement in the CPI, was 13.9 per cent. That was when the Labor Government was in office. In 1974-75, once again under the Labor Government, the increase in tax collections over the previous year, after adjusting for movements in the CPI, was 1 1 per cent. As I have said, in 1975- 76 the increase was plus 5.8 per cent, in 1976- 77 it was plus 2.5 per cent and in 1977-78 it was minus one per cent. Now I come to the estimate of tax collections for 1978-79, which is of course contained in the Budget which was presented to the House only in August. Even after the surcharge is applied, the estimated increase in tax collections for this coming year over the previous year is a low 5 per cent. This shows the Government’s success in tax indexation; it has been able to achieve these figures.

I will mention also the three-tiered tax scale system which was introduced in February this year. As opposed to the multi-tiered tax scale that we had previously, it is a much simpler system and one that many people can easily follow and understand. At the time when the threetiered tax scale system was introduced the Opposition made great play of the fact that we had abandoned tax indexation because we had brought in only a 50 per cent tax indexation. The Government has made it clear that it intends to continue with tax indexation in future years and that the people will benefit from it. I have the utmost confidence in the future of Australia. I have the utmost confidence in the legislation that is before the House at the moment. I know that no one likes to pay tax; none of us like to do that; but tax is a necessity if we are to provide services for the people of Australia who are in need. Taxation is like a great big funnel: Money from taxation is taken in one end from the people who can afford to pay taxes and is filtered out the other end for community services such as education and health.

Yet the Opposition says that we should not do this and we should not do that. It criticises this tax legislation almost as if it believes that no increases in tax are necessary. I deplore that action. Taxes are necessary. The increases that have been brought about by this legislation are sensible, particularly in light of the Budget deficit. I have no hesitation in suggesting that such legislation will be advantageous to Australia in reducing the deficit. As soon as the Australian economy has picked up, as it is now picking up, we will be able to do away with the 1? per cent surcharge, as the legislation states, and once again Austalia will continue on its way towards solid economic growth, as it is doing at the moment.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-The honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) obviously still believes in fairy tales. He still believes that this surcharge will be applied for only one year. We have seen what has happened to surcharges in the past. He seems also not to recognise that he is part of a government which is dishonest, dishonourable and disreputable. It is led by a dishonest and devious Prime Minister -

Mr Young:

– Who tells lies.

Mr Hunt:

– Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that that comment is offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw in view of the objection raised.

Mr Young:

– I withdraw.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Which one, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Young:

– It was me.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Politically this Government is dishonest and dishonourable. This comment was made by the Government when it was in opposition. It attacked us often enough but it does not want to cop it itself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member knows that he is out of order. He knows that he has made a direct reference to a member of the House.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I withdraw the direct reference in this instance but it does not affect the reputation of this Government as stated by myself. Why is it a dishonourable and disreputable Government? The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) went to the people last December and promised them tax cuts to operate from February of this year. It was on that basis that the Government was elected. Then, as soon as the election was over, the tax cuts were reimposed on the people in this Budget. In other words, the tax cuts have been wiped out completely for those in the lower and lower-middle income groups but not for those in the higher income groups. The Prime Minister made sure he protected his own. I intend to refer to a few examples of this but before I do so I will mention some of the other promises made by the Prime Minister during the last election and the election prior to it which have been broken, as instanced by this legislation. I refer to the home loan interest deductibility scheme. In the election campaign of 1 975 the Prime Minister gave a firm promise and undertaking that it would not be affected; that under no circumstances would it be touched. After the election the first thing he did was to emasculate it and to make it available only to those who were buying their first home. Then he went one step further. In this Budget and in the legislation we are discussing today it has been completely wiped out. Once again a promise has been utterly and irrevocably broken. Dishonesty! Then, of course, we have the question of long service leave and holiday pay which was dealt with by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis). For a long while rumours have been going around that action would be taken in regard to long service leave and holiday pay. Honourable members may remember that reports appeared in the Press.

Mr West:

– Leaks.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– As the honourable member for Cunningham said, there were leaks. The Budget measures are to apply not only to long service leave and holiday pay but to superannuation as well. I warn the people of Australia that that is next on the Government’s list. Superannuation will be taxed at a rate of 33.5 per cent.

Mr Braithwaite:

– Where does that come from?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– That has been recommended to the Government by the Treasury. The Government decided to go for only two of them in this instance, that is, long service leave and holiday pay. Instead of only 5 per cent of lump sum payments for unused long service leave and holiday pay being taxed, these amounts will be taxed now at the rate of 33.5c in the dollar. We are at the half way house at the moment. Because of the public outcry that occurred when news about the taxing of lump sum payments at the standard rate was leaked to the Press, the Government has introduced it in respect of only long service leave and holiday pay and left the taxing arrangement for superannuation benefits unchanged. But, of course, we will see superannuation benefits subject to normal taxation in the future. It too will be taxed at the rate of 33.5 per cent in accordance with the leaks which appeared in the Press prior to the introduction of the Budget.

I return now to the income tax surcharge. As a result of this surcharge a taxpayer without dependants earning $200 a week, which is pretty well the average, will pay an increase of 8.03 per cent. For a person earning $2,000 a week the increase is only 4.75 per cent. For a person on $200 a week the difference between the 1 November tax increase and the 1 February tax reduction will be a reduction of 15c in take home pay whereas a person on $2,000 a week will be $62.32 better off. That is an extraordinary difference. For a taxpayer with dependent spouse and earning $1 14 a week the percentage increase in taxation is 98. 1 per cent. For a person on $200 a week it is 1 1.3 per cent and for a person on $2,000 a week it is only 4.8 per cent. Is it any wonder that we say that this is a government for the big man, that this is a government which is setting out deliberately to assist the people in the high income bracket? Why is the Government raising this levy? It says that it is raising it because it needs the revenue. Why does it need the revenue? One of the major reasons is that it will not close off one of the most important means of tax evasion in this country, that is, family trusts. In an editorial entitled ‘A matter of trusts’ the Australian Financial Review of 29 September states.

Consultant Allan Carroll, of Business International, has pointed up the revealing statistics . . .

I will quote those statistics. In 1973-74 payasyouearn taxpayers paid $4,238m whilst nonPAYE taxpayers paid $ 1,252m. In 1975-76 PAYE taxpayers paid $6,07 lm and non-PAYE taxpayers paid $l,643m. In 1976-77 PAYE contributors paid $8,529m and non-PAYE contributors paid $2,525m. In 1977-78 PAYE contributors paid $9, 639m and non-PAYE contributors paid $2, 490m. The estimate for 1978-79 for PAYE contributors is $ 10,341m and for non-PAYE contributors $2,599m. Between 1973-74 and 1978-79 PAYE contributions have increased 2? times whilst non-PAYE contributions have only doubled. The article continues:

There is no suggestion that professionals and other selfemployed have suffered such a massive revenue loss as to justify the recent decline in tax receipts from non-PAYE contributors.

As a proportion, tax receipts from non-PAYE people have slipped from a proportion of one in three of PAYE contributions to one in four.

If one looks at the figures that I have quoted one will see that in 1976-77 non-PAYE taxpayers contributed $2,525m and that in 1978-79 they contributed only $2,599m. To where has the tax gone? It is very obvious that the family trust mechanism is being used as a means of avoiding taxation and that this is costing this country many hundreds of millions if not thousands of millions of dollars in revenue.

I am not going to deal today with the tax avoidance schemes of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) or the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. I am dealing with this matter so far as it affects revenue and the reason why the Government has imposed this taxation surcharge. It has done so because it is losing such massive amounts in revenue from the use of the family trust mechanism as a means of avoiding taxation. The Government has refused to close it up because to do so would hurt too many of its own people, including its own members from the very top right down through the reaches. Is it any wonder that I have said that it is a dishonest, dishonourable Government- a devious Government. Of course, I will not repeat what I said about the Prime Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Hon. Ian Robinson) Order! The honourable member knows better than to use that procedure.

Mr ARMITAGE:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not say anything wrong. I said that I would now like to deal with the question of lump sum retirement payments for long service leave and holiday pay. I would like to give one example of how this procedure is to operate. I though that the honourable member for Gellibrand explained the situation very clearly and constructively when he cited the case of the building and construction worker who goes from job to job and then eventually becomes unemployed. In the past a building and construction worker who became unemployed could utilise accumulated pro rata long service leave to tide him over during his period of unemployment. Now, of course, that person will have to pay taxation at the rate of 33.Sc in the dollar on that accumulated pro rata long service leave.

Let me give another example. I refer to the average person who receives a wage of $200 a week and who is entitled to four weeks holiday a year. If that person chooses to save up his holiday pay he will be able to accumulate leave to the value of $800 a year. If he does it for five years he will accumulate leave to the value of $4,000. In the past he was taxed on only five per cent of that $4,000. In other words, he was taxed on only $200 and he would have paid in the vicinity of $66 in tax. However, he will now have to pay tax at the rate of 33.Sc in the dollar on the whole $4,000. Therefore he will pay tax of $1,340 out of the $4,000. That is how the legislation will hit the ordinary person. That is how it will hit the average individual who is earning $200 a week. Is it any wonder that the Opposition opposes this proposal to increase the taxation payable on long service leave and holiday pay. Instead of five per cent of the amount accrued being subject to tax the Government now proposes to tax the lot of it at the rate of 33.5c in the dollar.

Next on the list is superannuation itself. Claims to this effect were leaked before the Budget was presented. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) made denials. He led everyone up the garden path. But he did not mention long service leave and holiday pay. We should watch what will happen next year in respect of superannuation. The Opposition opposes very strongly the imposition of such a measure. The Opposition opposes strongly the proposal to impose a tax surcharge. It believes that such a proposal is inequitable. It is one that can assist only those people in the high income brackets and it is to the detriment of those in the lower and middle income brackets. Added to that, the proposal is dishonest because the Government gave a firm undertaking at the last election that it would reduce taxation in accordance with the 1 February tax cuts. Now, as soon as the election is over, a surcharge has been introduced and taxes have risen.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the honourable member for Barton is living an Alice in Wonderland existence if he believes for one minute that the Government will impose this surcharge for only one year. It is here to stay. The Government has put forward this measure in this way so as to ensure that it hits the middle and lower income groups and not the big men. For this reason the Opposition opposes these propositions.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-I rise to support the Bills which we are now discussing and which are in fact budgetary measures. Before I deal with this legislation and look a little more closely at some of the avoidance measures which it proposes to close, I would like to refer to some of the points made by previous speakers. I agree with the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who is the Opposition’s spokesman on this matter, that what we should be looking for more than anything else in our taxation laws is equity. If we are looking for equity I believe that we will have to start to rewrite the whole income tax legislation. I agree with him in that respect. However, perhaps his philosophy as to how to get equity is different from mine.

I would like to make a few points in respect of what was said by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage). The honourable member spoke about trusts. I believe that his comments in this respect were based more on rumour and innuendo than on facts. I also believe that speeches of the kind made by the honourable member only created fears and uncertainties as far as the population is concerned. The honourable member talked in terms of the benefits available to some classes of the community as opposed to others. If we look very closely at the changes in the taxation laws over the last decade we will see that considerable benefits have been provided to the lower income earners. For instance, in 1972 the ceiling for tax exemption was $1,040. Yet in the space of six years the ceiling for exemption has more than trebled to the present rate of $3,893. An individual can now earn $75 per week tax free. The spouse can earn as much again, which means that a combined income of $150 per week tax free can flow into a household.

Having given those concessions to the lower income earners, when one comes to look at the taxation laws with a veiw to giving the benefit of further taxation decreases obviously those people in the lower income bracket will not be advantaged as much as the people in the higher income brackets. The philosophy of taxation is based on how much incentive a person has to earn income in order to produce the revenue that government- the Labor Government particularly, and this Government proceeds to follow suit- needs to pay for fairly lavish welfare and social programs. In fact, I think it was probably a mistake to delete from the title of the Income Tax Assessment Act the fact that it was also a social contribution Act. I believe that we have to weld together the social aspects of our revenue spending and try to provide some basic comparison in respect of the manner in which we raise that revenue from the other sector of the community. We have to relate the amount of money that is spent on people in the community who are disadvantaged and in need to the amount of income that is collected through taxation.

The honourable member for Chifley quoted from an article in the Canberra Times. He placed a great deal of emphasis on the pay-as-you-earn taxation system. I believe that if the honourable member looked at the figures closely he would find that revenue from the pay-as-you-earn taxation system increased’ proportionately more during Labor’s term of office than it did in latter years. Of course, this can be attributed to many things. The wage explosion during those years must have increased the collections made under the pay-as-you-earn taxation system. There was no tax indexation to offset the effect of inflation. Worse still, many people in the community during those years sought the security of a salaried job in preference to the uncertainty of private enterprise or businesses that were going bankrupt in great numbers. Probably it would be factual to accept the figures cited by the honourable member. However, we should look at the figures more constructively and place the blame where it should be placed.

The fact that we are gathering more taxation under the pay-as-you-earn system now is a result of the higher salaries being paid at the cost of less profit in the private enterprise system. Also, without a doubt, this is due to the fact that more employees are earning rather substantial salaries. Therefore, there has been a boost to those payasyouearn taxation collections in that time at the expense, I would suggest, of those people who pay taxation on an annual basis. This can be attributed to the uncertainty of the economic position during the period of the Labor Government. When we are looking at the payasyouearn taxation system, we should never forget that tax paid on the high salaries earned by parliamentarians is collected under the system. Nobody would suggest that the comparison that was drawn by the honourable member for

Chifley was devoted only to people in receipt of lower incomes. Taxation paid on a tremendous number of higher incomes is being collected through this system. It is possibly a safer system. It is more certain for the Government. It can collect the tax on a weekly basis rather than on an annual basis. They are some of the factors that I thought I would mention. Members of Parliament are not the only people in the community in receipt of high salaries. Many people receive incomes in the vicinity of $300 to $500 a week. We certainly would not call such people poor by any stretch of the imagination.

I thought that the temptation to mention trusts would have been too great for the honourable member for Chifley to pass up in this debate. Let us be frank about the position: Members of the Opposition have trusts and members of the Government have trusts. They use them for various purposes. But let us look at when the proliferation of the use of trusts and family trusts occurred. It occurred in the years of soaring taxation which was not subject to indexation when the Australian Labor Party was in power. As a practicing accountant at that time, I can certify that these family trusts found their basic origin and their growth in the years when the ordinary individual was being overtaxed. Greater amounts of taxation were being taken from people during those years. In other words, these people thought that they would like to be in partnership with somebody they knew in preference to a partnership with the then Commonwealth Government and paying out a greater share of their profits than should have been the case. The device was initiated then. It was within the power of the then Labor Government to correct any anomalies that it thought were evident at that time. It had plenty of opportunities to do so. But what did honourable members opposite do? They have done nothing except carp and criticise since they have come back here as members of the Opposition. For that reason, they will probably stay members of the Opposition.

Mr Lloyd:

– They should build up trust in themselves.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– Yes, they did not build up enough trust in their own Government. That is where they went wrong. The family trust or the trust structure is no different from a private company or a public company structure in which the income is spread over a greater area. I believe that the fact that we have not recognised certain alterations which should be made in the companies structure has led to family trusts being created so that these tax concessions can be gained in practically the same way they are gained in companies. I am not saying that there are not abuses under the system; but if we are to look at just one area without looking at the total effect or the theory of taxation we will not get anywhere. We will have a hop-scotch situation. The trust system is possibly one of the older legal devices that have been adopted under common law. As I said, trusts are no different from a private or public company. The Labor Government had an opportunity to do something about trusts when it was in government and it failed to do so. If we are to look at trusts, let us look at the whole of the Income Tax Assessment Act to make sure that the equity we seek and should have is firmly implanted in the theory of trusts and taxation law.

The legislation we are debating today is designed to close some of the tax avoidance loopholes. Honourable members who have spoken in the debate have mentioned some of these loopholes. I wish to make some remarks in respect of annual pay and long service leave. I hesitate to say that the previous speaker in the debate, the honourable member for Chifley, referred to these matters in the same vein that I will. It is a fact that in some commercial transactions, salaries were taken in the form of retirement salaries instead of as immediate income. This is still being done. Instead of taking normal retirement leave or annual leave as the person concerned should have done at the time of earning that leave, this leave was deferred each year, put into the form of retirement pay and then taxed at the rate of 5 per cent. But let us never forget that people who take annual leave, people who take their long service leave in the normal course of employment without terminating employment, have always been taxed on the amount of money they receive. We are dealing with a rather confined area in which certain abuse was occurring. I believe that the Government has recognised that people should not suffer in respect of long service leave provisions by deciding that the rate of tax to be paid on the lump sum shall be only 5 per cent of the sum accrued up to 15 August 1978. Perhaps we could have adopted the same philosophy in respect of annual leave. Lump sum payments for accured annual leave for the 12 months prior to 15 August 1978 could have been assessed in full but leave accrued before 15 August 1977 might have been subjected to the same provisions that apply in respect of long service leave. That is only a suggestion that I make, and possibily too late at that. This was one narrow area of tax avoidance which will be closed.

I believe that the withdrawal of rebates in respect of overseas dependants occurred because this is another concession area where abuse has occurred. The Government strives to collect taxation under an Act but it may grant an exemption or a concession. Those exemptions or concessions can be subject to abuse. Obviously, this is one area of abuse that has been indicated to the Taxation Office. The narrowing of the provisional tax adjustment from 20 per cent to 10 per cent represents no great penalty. We must realise that it affects only those people whose provisional tax is self-assessed and who have taken advantage of a situation to deliberately underestimate their provisional tax by the 20 per cent margin knowing that they have no fear of retaliation from the Taxation Office. This provision will apply only in the self-assessment provisional tax area. Discretion is still vested with the Commissioner of Taxation for the penalty not to be imposed if he feels there are obvious circumstances that led to miscalculation of the figure submitted initially. Of course, this can happen.

Some fears and concerns have been expressed in respect of the averaging provisions for primary producers by the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council. I think that the Council should receive fairly direct answers from the Treasurer (Mr Howard) when he is replying in the debate on this Bill just to alleviate the fears that have been expressed. Adjustments were made to the tax averaging provisions in 1977. The tax averaging system now is the best it has ever been. It provides all the benefits that are due to primary producers who must contend with seasonal fluctuations and other difficulties. I see the tax averaging provision at this stage as fully covering the difficulties of the primary producer. The amendments now being made to the legislation will prevent the abuses by people who are not primary producers but who would want to enjoy the benefits of these provisions at the risk of damaging the tax base of every other taxpayer in Australia.

The Treasurer has placed before honourable members a list of 10 or more areas of abuse that have been closed in the last 12 months. This makes me realise that, with the Income Tax Assessment Act in its present form, I can only describe the actions of Australians and the Australian nation in respect of tax as very sick. People who are not prepared to carry their proper burden of taxation or their proper share of the liability devise these avoidance schemes. Possibly the most blatant to come before the notice of the Parliament this year was the sales tax avoidance scheme. A method of options permitted the taxpayer to avoid his share of liability in respect of the sales tax paid on new motor vehicles. I believe that our society in this regard is rather sick. I do not believe that people should be permitted to deliberately get out of their obvious responsibility and liability as set by the law. They should not be allowed to indulge in these methods of avoiding tax. In this regard, I must say something about a profession that has developed in the last few years. I refer to the tax avoidance industry. I can only class it as a parasite on our society. It should not be part of our society. The sooner we get rid of this industry the better. It is one thing to close down the schemes as they come to our attention, but I believe that it would be far better to ask people in private enterprisepeople in private and public practice in the legal and accounting fraternities- to meet with the Treasurer or the Government on a consultative basis not only to make sure that the professional ethics enunciated by their societies and institutes are adhered to but also so that those people can have an input into government to assist in closing the loopholes. They might be able to make some very good suggestions as to how a better equity between taxpayers could be achieved. Whilst I decry the people who involve themselves in tax avoidance programs, the people I detest are those in the tax avoidance industry, and the sooner we do away with them the better. It is my suggestion that we consult with private enterprise to try to form a consultative panel to deal with the problem.

Much comment has been made about the Vi per cent increase in tax rates from 32 per cent to 33V4 per cent, but nothing has been said by the Opposition and little has been said by the Press of Australia by the offsetting influence of the cancellation of the Medibank charge as from 1 November, which on my calculation will amount to about $325 a year. I think it is unfair and deliberately misleading for the Opposition to feature the Vi per cent increase without taking into account the offsetting effect of the Medibank levy. In that regard, I believe that the Government has taken a step in the right direction. I say with a certain amount of pride in my own State that we now have a Medibank system which is almost parallel to the one that has been in existence in Queensland for quite a few decades.

Mr McVeigh:

– They copied us.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– They might copy us in many other directions too. That aspect has not been brought out in this debate and I doubt whether any Opposition speakers will bring it out. I wish to dwell for a moment on the averaging provisions. A letter has been circulated by the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, and I ask the Treasurer (Mr Howard) or the Minister who replies to this debate to clarify certain aspects of the proposed changes in the averaging provisions. First of all, I ask him to enunciate what farm income is and what nonfarm income is and what guidelines will be set. For instance, there is some concern about the salary paid to a working partner in a primary production partnership. Is that salary, which is paid out of the profits of the firm, classed as farm income or non-farm income? I know that in the past a precedent has been set in relation to the salary paid by a company, which must be regarded as non-farm income, as is the dividend, but I think that partnerships will want to know whether the salary of a working partner is to be regarded as farm or non-farm income.

There is also some concern about the redemnon of income equalisation deposits, although I believe that as these income equalisation deposits are redeemed they will come back in the form of farm income, even though the interest will not. That is another area that needs some clarification. Another aspect that needs to be clarified relates to farmers who hire or lend out their farm equipment under a contracting arrangement to assist a neighbour. Will that be regarded as farm or non-farm income? If the plant is hired to any other outsiders in any circumstances, how will that income be regarded by the Taxation Office? I believe that the amount of $5,000 which has been set will allow an individual farmer sufficient scope to cover seasonal fluctuations by making investments from time to time. On today’s rates, an income of $5,000 would represent an investment of about $50,000. Bearing in mind the aspects of income equalisation deposits, this must be a more attractive proposition for people in the rural industry. In fact, it is a very good alternative which a farmer or grazier could use in relation to averaging or income equalisation deposits. I have no hesitation in saying that an income of $5,000 from outside the basic structure of the farm is a fair one and I believe it has been adopted rightly by the Government in order to stop the abuse relating to the Pitt Street and Collins Street farmers.

In regard to the taxation legislation, the Government has closed some of the loopholes and will be alert in relation to other loopholes. However, in that regard I want to make one final point about the income tax legislation. It is now almost impossible to interpret the legislation. High Court cases in great numbers are required to interpret it, and I refer particularly to the Curran scheme, where I believe the interpretation was probably not even a legal one; certainly it was not an accounting interpretation. I believe that it is time the Government got down to producing legislation that is as easily read as our Constitution, which has stood the test of time for over 77 years. We should have legislation which provides for one basic tax rate on income, whether on the basis of capital gains or otherwise, with a ceiling to ensure that a family or an individual is allowed to earn a certain income free of tax. Above all, let us reduce the exemptions and rebates that presently apply because every time the Government creates an exemption or rebate it ensures that a comparable abuse will follow. I suggest to the Government that this type of taxation reform is long overdue. I have much pleasure in supporting the budgetary measures introduced by this legislation.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– There are five income tax Bills before the House. Four of them concern personal income tax and the fifth relates to the health insurance levy. That last Bill proposes the abolition of the health insurance levy from a date to be declared and the Opposition does not oppose it. It is in relation to the other four Bills that we are concerned. We regard them as unfair and unjust in their imposition and accordingly as unacceptable. More than that, they represent a downright dishonest enterprise in the way in which the Government has sought to destroy promises firmly given to the public and accepted in good faith by the public. We intend to oppose those Bills as a demonstration of good faith. We do this in the knowledge that there is justifiable public outrage at the way in which the Government has destroyed those firm undertakings to the community. There can be no quibbling about the opposition of the Australian public to the injustice and the dishonesty of the present Government. That was amply demonstrated a fortnight ago in the Werriwa by-election, which was fought totally on federal issues. It was quite clear that essentially the Australian community, as represented by the people of Werriwa, was repudiating the dishonesty and the injustice which are rampant in the way in which the Government administers the affairs of this country and, more essentially, in the way in which it applies economic policy. That rejection, that repudiation of the measure of government administration was confirmed only this weekend.

I have said some very strong things about these Bills- that they are unfair and unjust, that they represent collectively a downright dishonest enterprise- and I want to justify those assertions. Dealing firstly with the unfairness of the proposals, they penalise wage and salary earners, and in a severe way in many cases, but they allow privileged opportunities like capital gains, excess profits generated by mineral development companies in this country, windfall gains as additions to the profits of oil companies derived because of arrangements instituted by this Government, and family trusts to go scot free. The vast mass of people in this community- the wage and salary earners- is expected to bear a burden of additional cost to support the Government. However, those areas of privilege I enumerated go scot free. Again, the Bills favour high income earners at the expense of middle and modest income earners, and there can be no better illustration of that than the way in which the burden of sacrifice is distributed. For instance, if we take the situation of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) we find that he, a man on $ 1 ,500 a week, will have a 5 per cent increase in the tax he has to pay. But a person on up to average weekly earnings- that is up to about $250 a week- will have an 8 per cent increase in the tax he has to pay in future. That is inequitable, it is unjust, it is unacceptable. Again the Bills will disadvantage every second taxpayer. Fifty-five per cent of taxpayers will be worse off as a result of these changes. The simple fact is that we have in Australia today a government of unfair principles and a government of injustice. It is a government of unfair principles and of injustice, regardless of whether it is fixing electoral redistributions, arranging as to who is to take the blame for fixing redistributions, when the fixing goes wrong or allocating the burden of increased income taxation.

These proposals continue the injustice which was enshrined in the tax changes introduced in February this year. In those changes 43 per cent of the benefit went to the top 10 per cent of income earners. When we look at the way in which this burden of changed tax arrangements is distributed, we discover that very largely it is again the people in the middle and modest income earning areas who will proportionately bear the greatest burden of sacrifice. That is not only unfair and unjust but also the product of blatant dishonesty. The Government did not campaign eight months ago on the promise of tax increases, both direct and indirect. The Government did not give any indication that it was intending to disadvantage most of all those in the middle and modest income areas. The Prime Minister in his policy speech of last year said:

The Government has brought in the largest and fairest reforms ever made to Australia ‘s tax system.

Eight months later he sets about dismantling what he describes- I do not describe them in these terms- as the largest and fairest reforms ever made to Australia’s tax system. He would have known full well at the time he made that statement, at the time he drafted these arrangements which were introduced in February and which now have been repudiated that it would have been impossible, given the state of the economy, the direction in which the economy was moving, the liabilities the Government had, for the Government to sustain that undertaking. It reminds me of a saying that I have heard from time to time, namely, that a diplomat is a man who is sent abroad to lie for the good of his country. It is quite apparent on the record of the Prime Minister that he seeks to achieve the same sort of benefit for his party by the same means by staying at home.

Another disturbing aspect of these proposals and other proposals which will be discussed in the course of debate during the Budget session relates to the unfairness of tax sourcing. Under the present Government the tendency is to move proportionately away from direct personal taxation and increasingly towards indirect taxation. Last year personal tax represented 56. 8 per cent of total revenue. This year it is down to 54.8 per cent. The Government no doubt would suggest that this represents an easing of the tax burden for income earners in the community. That is nonsense. It is more than nonsense; it is dishonest to suggest such a thing. The total revenue burden imposed by the Government has to be borne by the whole community and, in the final analysis, income earners as consumers have to meet the cost of it. Accordingly, the extent to which the Government shuffles about the distribution of the burden between direct and indirect taxes makes no difference to the simple fact that the same people finally will be paying for that burden.

What is important is the way in which that burden will be distributed and the capacity of people to pay for it, according to the different ways in which the burden is distributed. The more the Government resorts to indirect tax measures, the greater becomes the inequity of the total revenue raising system. The bigger the disadvantage for people on modest and low incomes, the greater the difficulties for those unfortunate people who are described as living in relative poverty in the community. The Prime Minister suggests that the great virtue of indirect taxes is that they allow choice; people can choose whether or not they purchase the goods on which the indirect taxes are imposed. Presumably the choice for the poor is one of starving or living, of eating bread and butter or of denying themselves these staple foods. This is an argument of selfishness and it completely ignores the inequity of these sorts of proposals, the inequity of the direction in which the Government is moving in relation to the distribution of its tax burden.

The more it is able to move in the direction of indirect taxes, the more it is able comparatively to ease the total burden of taxation on high income earners, such as people like the Prime Minister or the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume), the former representative of Patrick Partners. At least he was successful there in putting together prospectuses, if not in being able to produce the goods to support the description in the prospectuses. As I was saying, it eases the burden for people of their ilk but increases it for people on modest and low incomes.

As well as that, people who have never paid tax before will be required to pay tax to the extent to which the Government introduces, as it is generally believed, a broadly based system of indirect taxes, whether in the form of final retail sales tax or in the form of value added tax. I refer to low income earners such as pensioners, Aboriginals or even children; such are the lengths to which the Government is prepared to go to redistribute the burden away from those more able to bear it towards those least able to bear it.

So the sum result of this sort of situation and of the strategy that the Government is seeking to establish in the distribution of the revenue burden in the community is that the losers will be losing twice. As I have pointed out, we have already seen how the moderate and the middle income earners will be disadvantaged largely because of the imposition of the so called temporary tax surcharge. But because of the extent to which the Government also resorts, as it has resorted in this Budget, to indirect taxes, these people are doubly disadvantaged because proportionately the burden of indirect taxes on essential commodities, such as food, clothing and transport which is necessary for employment, for those people will represent a greater proportion of their income than is the case for high income earners. Moreover, unlike many high income earners working in professions or in business, the middle and modest income earners will not be able to evade these liabilities, such as many of the charges related to motor vehicles and the use of motor vehicles, by claiming them as business expenses and passing them on to the general public.

Let me illustrate how people are being disadvantaged as a result of the imposition of indirect taxes. This is germane to these Bills. The tendency is for the Government to move away from direct taxes, personal taxes, individual taxes, to indirect taxes. Last year taxes such as customs, excise duty and sales tax represented 26.8 per cent of total revenue. This year they represent 30.5 per cent of total revenue. Let us see how these taxes fall among the various income groups in the community. In illustrating this point, I seek leave to the have incorporated in Hansard a table which has been prepared by D. J. Collins and delivered in an address to the New South Wales Branch of the Australian and New Zealand Economics Society in August 1978.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HAYDEN:

– I do not intend to detail all the items listed in that table. What it shows is that for income earners receiving approximately $7,000 a year or less- the sort of modest and lowincome earners about whom I have been speaking- the imposition of increased excise tax, duty on tobacco, spirits and crude oil and the adjustment in sales tax on motor vehicles, represents 1.5 per cent of household income as a measurement of the additional costs that these people have to bear, but that for people on $18,000 a year and above, the imposition is only one per cent or less of household income. The higher one goes in the income scale the less is the burden that has to be borne. That is the sort of inequity about which I have been talking. Those are the sorts of redistributional effects which the Government is seeking to bring about in this community. They are crude, they are unjust and they are unacceptable to any fair minded person. We in the Opposition oppose them. We will continue to oppose them and will take every reasonable measure that we can properly take to urge the community to vent its outrage at such an injustice being imposed on it. Let us look at the nonsense that the Prime Minister goes on with when he seeks to justify this sort of injustice. He is reported in the Australian Financial Review of 10 July 1978 as saying this:

If income tax is too high, government takes that off and you ‘ve got no choice about it.

If indirect tax is higher, and in Australia it’s worth noting that indirect tax is very low by world standards, then it’s up to the discretion of the taxpayers whether they consume more of a certain thing, and therefore pay more tax.

I go back to the point I mentioned earlier. There is not a lot of choice available for people on modest and low incomes. Even people on middle incomes find some difficulties in these areas. There are certain basic outlays they must make, especially if they have a family, for bread, butter, milk, eggs and flour, the staple essentials necessary to keep any family going. To the extent that the Government moves towards a broadly based sales tax- as it clearly indicated it will- then these people are going to be more disadvantaged than people on higher incomes. That is clear from the details in the tables I have had incorporated in Hansard. Mr Eric Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association has estimated that the introduction of a value added tax or broadly based retail sales tax will increase the cost of living for a pensioner by $150 a year in terms of higher prices. That is the sort of injustice that concerns the Opposition. But not even the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is prepared to go all of the way with the deception that the Prime Minister is seeking to introduce into the community in discussion on that matter by suggesting that it is just a simple matter of choice.

The Treasurer is on record as saying that the most obvious argument in favour of broadly based indirect retail tax is that it would allow you to reduce personal tax and give people a choice. That is true in theory, anyway, but in practice it is not so true, if you have it broad based and you catch food and clothing. He goes on to say that one of the obvious disadvantages of it is that it can fall more severely on low income earners, certainly in the areas where the effective choice is in theory only. Of course it is in theory only and it is a mean cruelty for the Prime Minister or for anyone else on the Government side to suggest that people can exercise choice in these circumstances. Accordingly, that is the whole tactic behind the thrust of Government fiscal thinking at present, a shift of the burden of fiscal responsibility away from the wealthy, away from the high income earners like the Prime Minister who in any case pays very little tax because of the tax avoidance devices he has been able to establish like his family trust- and on to the shoulders of the middle and modest income earners and especially on to the low income earners in the community.

I referred to the quality of dishonesty which is rampant through just about every undertaking of this Government and especially of this Government’s Prime Minister. This is particularly true of tax indexation. All of the community would remember the firm promises of the Government in 1975 to introduce full tax indexation. In 1976 we had 93 per cent tax indexation. In 1977 we had 80 per cent tax indexation. In 1978 we had 35 per cent tax indexation, and what are we going to have next year? The simple fact is that you cannot trust the word of the Prime Minister. It is a serious state of affairs for any country to be in when the people of the nation cannot ignore the simple fact that they cannot trust the word of the No. 1 public figure in the country.

I mentioned a few minutes ago that the increase- the tax surcharge as it is called- is supposed to be a temporary surcharge. What we would like to have is some firm undertaking that this is going to be a temporary increase, that it will be eliminated at the end of this fiscal year and more especially we would like to have some outline of what is going to replace it. Any thinking person who has merely a basic understanding of how this economy is performing and where it is going would recognise that there is no room available for the Government to eliminate that so-called temporary tax surcharge, given the thrust of its general economic approach- one that we disagree with- and not replace it with some other sort of imposition. Accordingly that is where my concern stems from about the increasing tendency of the Government to wish to move towards indirect taxes.

There are a few other matters I wish to raise in the limited time available which are highly germane. This is a high tax government, contrary to what the Prime Minister has said. Budget receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product on average for the three Labor Budgets were 24.8 per cent and for the three coalition Budgets 26. 1 per cent; that is, the community is paying 1.3 per cent of GDP more in various forms of taxes both direct and indirect as a result of the consciously imposed measures of this Government. That is not the result of policies honestly applied, given the firm undertakings of the

Government that it would reduce the total burden of revenue raisings imposed on the community. What does that mean in monetary terms? It means that the community is paying $ 1,300m more in revenue on average this year than was the case on average for the three years of the Labor Government. It means that on average taxpayers in this country are paying more than $200 each as a result of the high taxation policies of this Government, or something like $4 a week.

What I would like to see the Government moving towards is a resource tax raising $ 150m; to eliminate the crude oil levy windfall gain to the oil development companies of $340m; to impose a capital gains tax on gains in excess of $200,000, raising $300m; to adjust the highest levels of personal income tax to raise $200m; to abolish the investment allowance, $400m; to abolish tax avoidance through family trusts, $100m-$l,490,000 as against the imposition of the direct increases in personal tax and denying pensioners and employment beneficiaries and other social welfare beneficiaries of benefits amounting to about $l,140m. There would still be $350m available for the Government and it could keep its conscience intact in that it had been fair and just in the policies it had introduced.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! The Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– It is distressing that the level of political debate in Australia, at least as practised by the Opposition, has reached the level where, for example, the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) can get up and deliver a personal impugnment of the Prime Minister in this House rather than deal with the issues of this particular legislation which relates to tax.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. I do not understand the context in which the word impugnment’ is used. Is it parliamentary for a person to talk of a person’s impugnment?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)There is no point of order.

Mr BAUME:

– I also regret that the style of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) should be .related to the use of words like ‘public outrage’. He is endeavouring to maintain his rage too. I am just looking at the style of the Opposition in dealing with what is a very serious item of tax legislation. I am interested to hear the continuing harping on individual words, personal words relating to members on this side of the House. I wonder whether this is seen as a method by the Opposition of furthering its position, of increasing the public awareness of tax matters, or whether it is part of some unfortunate new style of politics. I am afraid that the harping on individual words and on indvidual members of Parliament by honourable members opposite does seem to suggest that issues are no longer the matter of substance that they wish to discuss in this House but that the personal impugning of members is their style. It seems to me to be an unfortunate style. I noticed, for example, that when I interjected quite properly, I would submit, on the Leader of the Opposition, when he was talking arrant nonsense about how indirect taxes would prevent people eating bread and jam- when I interjected that there are no indirect taxes on food-his only response was personal insult of me. I do not mind, they have been insulting me for years.

Mr Armitage:

– Nobody could insult you.

Mr BAUME:

– I enjoy the continual carping of the honourable member for Chifley, who keeps reminding me of his basic nature, but I do feel that on matters as important as this it does seem right that the Opposition should adopt a slightly more serious tone. I was glad to note that towards the end of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) he started to introduce a few ‘facts ‘. I regret, of course, that in other areas in the text of his speech he preferred to accuse the Government, for example, of fixing electoral redistributions. He knows that that is certainly untrue. He knows that any suggestion that the Queensland redistribution was affected in any way by Government influence was totally rejected by the McGregor inquiry. Its findings related entirely to naming an electorate and not to fixing any electoral redistribution. It was improper and disgraceful for the Leader of the Opposition to interpose that kind of nonsense in what is a serious debate on taxation.

Let us examine the key issues. Let us examine to what extent it is reasonable for the Leader of the Opposition to allege that this Government’s determined policy, which he says is away from personal income tax to indirect tax, is an attack on the worker. I was interested to look at his statistics because the facts as shown in the Budget seem to suggest a totally different picture from that which he presented. For example, in the latest Budget excise duty and sales tax, which are indirect taxes which affect the working man and all consumers, have increased by 26 per cent. Is it not curious that in the 1975 Budget, which was brought in by the man who is now Leader of the Opposition, excise duty and sales tax taken together increased by 35 per cent? Here is a man who introduced a Budget to increase these indirect taxes by 35 per cent complaining about a government which has increased them by 26 per cent. What extraordinary hypocrisy from the Leader of the Opposition. Is it not fascinating that in the 1974-75 Labor Government Budget, for example, the combination of indirect and direct taxes rose by 32 per cent in one year? The Labor Party did not appear to object. The Labor Party supported that Budget. How curious it is then that there is violent opposition from those opposite and that there is ‘repeated use of the words ‘outrage’, ‘injustice’ and ‘dishonesty’ when this Government introduces a set of tax measures which increases the combination of direct and indirect taxes by only 12 per cent, which is so much- in fact almost one-third- less than the amount by which the Labor Party raised them in one year. How extraordinary it is then that this kind of nonsense is coming from opposite.

It strikes me that the important point that we should be discussing here today is the best way of resolving problems which are faced by a government in the present budgetary situation. How do we make certain that the burden of the attack against inflation is carried fairly throughout the community? I draw honourable members’ attention to these specific Bills because, despite what the Opposition has been doing, we are here supposed to be discussing some specific Bills., For example, I refer to the change to the long service leave situation contained in this legislation. In the past people who took long service leave paid tax as if they were still at work. No one in this House or outside it has ever objected to that proposition. However, if they failed to take that long service leave- for which I believe the trade union movement fought well and hard because it was held that people deserved that benefit- and thereby apparently demonstrated that they did not need it, they could avoid normal taxation on it.

It is not a question, as the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) suggested, of a benefit suddenly being taken away unfairly. The fact is that by failing to tax people when they took long service leave as a lump sum payment at the same rate at which they would be taxed if they had taken it normally, governments in the past have been providing these people with an unfair advantage over the rest of their fellow workers. Anyone must recognise the truth of this proposition. Those who take long service leave have always been taxed. Magically, those who do not take it but take a lump sum payment, have been taxed on only 5 per cent of what they have received. That is unfair to the bulk of workers and in fact provides an unreasonable incentive for people not to take the leave to which they are entitled, which they should take and which it has been held is in their interests to take for health and other purposes.

It seems to me that the Labor Party’s opposition to this measure is in fact the normal sort of fictional opposition which, because of the structure of this House and this style of parliament, an Opposition is required to present. It seems to me unfortunate in many instances that Oppositions feel under a total obligation to oppose everything whether or not it is fair or right. Certainly the volume of opposition from honourable members opposite to this matter seems to me to relate largely to a formal requirement to be seen to be doing something in opposing rather than to applying their intellect to the problem in hand. The same principle, of course, applies to annual leave as well as to long service leave. I think that I should stress here that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the long service leave situation. The facts are, of course, that anyone who has earned entitlements to long service leave in the period up to the presentation of the Budget in August will be taxed only at the old rate on those entitlements, that is, at 5 per cent. There is a widespread view in the community, which has no doubt been fostered by the sort of hysterical nonsense being spoken opposite, that people’s back entitlements are suddenly to be unfairly and unreasonably taxed at a new rate. That is totally untrue. The facts are that it is clearly stated in the Budget Speech that people who have earned entitlements in the past will be entitled to take those entitlements at the old tax arrangement, which applies to only 5 per cent of lump sum payments. That is clearly spelt out in the Budget Speech. There is no scope for misinterpretation, even by people opposite with malicious intent.

Mr West:

– That is not so on annual leave.

Mr BAUME:

– Even the honourable member for Cunningham surely will be capable of reading the Budget Speech. Perhaps I had better hold his hand and read it for him. On long service leave there is no question of retrospectivity, and he knows that and is talking nonsense.

Mr West:

– What about annual leave?

Mr BAUME:

– I thank the honourable member for Cunningham for his timely interjection. In the matter of annual leave there is a very serious question of principle. In many areas of employment, particularly in the public sector, people lose their entitlements to annual leave if they do not take them. In fact there is a requirement in many areas of this nation to take annual leave because it has been earned for a specific purpose.

This is because as a result of strenuous endeavour, for which I commend it, the trade union movement has earned entitlements to leave for its members. This leave is paid for and should be taken. It is extraordinary for anyone to deny that under the old system a person who failed to take leave- which in many areas as a general principle is taken away if an employee does not take it- got away with a very low tax rate. In other words, those who took the leave paid normal tax, but those who did not take the leave, and retired with it accumulated ended up getting away with a very low tax rate, once again to the disadvantage of their fellow workers who had paid tax at the standard rate. One of the things that so many people do not seem to recognise is that if someone avoids paying tax someone else has to pay it. The workers of this nation have in fact been picking up the bill for those people who have been able to avoid paying tax in this area as in many other areas.

I am opposed to the use of systems by which people can avoid paying tax. I suggest that this system of being able to accrue one ‘s annual leave and then pay only a nominal tax on it when one leaves is a disgraceful provision. I am very glad to see it being changed because it can be used not only by workers on modest incomes where the impact on tax collections is not serious at all but also by people on very high incomes, by people who are self-employed and by people whose revenue impact on the Government would be very serious indeed. I suggest that improvements like this in the tax legislation to make it fair to all concerned are of vital consequence. I must say that I welcome the introduction of measures of this nature as I welcome the introduction of measures aimed at stopping tax avoidance of an improper nature which is, in effect, evasion by people using tax devices of a kind that this Government has worked so hard to oppose.

I agree with some members of the Opposition- it is a pity that some members of the Opposition do not adopt an equally conciliatory tone- that there were some features of the tax measures introduced in the present Budget which could be improved upon and which have been improved upon. For example, as regards the annual leave situation, the original intention in the Budget Speech was to tax that annual leave at whatever the rate that would apply to the lump sum payment. In other words, if a person had quite a few weeks of leave left over and he left his place of employment, his total income would be added up and, of course, a pretty high marginal rate of tax would apply to the last little bits of revenue, such as annual leave, added to the lump sum. The fact is that as a result of substantial pressure from individual back benchers and from the Government members taxation sub-committee, this rate was limited to 3316 per cent. So in effect no penal rate is applicable.

I want to stress to this House that this Government is not inflexible when clear anomalies are pointed out to it by, for example, its own back bench and effective committees like the taxation sub-committee, of which I must say I am very glad to be the Secretary. We have presented to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) clear indications of methods by which the Budget objectives can be better met by some modest changes in the tax situation. In fact they have been introduced. I commend the Treasurer for recognising the merits of the points that we raised. I commend him also for the changes he introduced relating to page 22 of the Budget Speech by which, as a result of strong submissions from the Government back bench and others, the tax imposed on various benefit payments has been withdrawn. The suggestion that tax should be imposed on them was recognised by the Treasurer and by the Government to impose an unfair burden on particular people. These benefits were, of course, the rehabilitation training allowance, the rehabilitation living-away-from-home allowance, the incentive allowance for rehabilitation, the invalid pension for persons under age pension age, the sheltered employment allowance, the repatriation service pension on account of unemployability or pulmonary tuberculosis for persons under age pension age, the tuberculosis allowance for persons under age pension age and the tuberculosis housekeeper allowance. There had been suggestions that these benefits would be taxed. They will now not be taxed and I commend the Government for recognising the merit in the case against taxing those measures.

The other point that concerns me is the suggestion that somehow this Government has done something terrible about tax. Honourable members will notice that there was no mention by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech about the enormous increases, not just in money terms but in real terms- that is, after accounting for inflation- in the level of tax that was collected by his Government as against that collected by this Government. I presume that everyone is rather bored with hearing members of the

Government say ‘Ah, yes, but you were worse than us’, whenever the Government is attacked for doing something. The whole issue in making these distinctions is to dramatise the fact that any Government that raises taxes is going to be unpopular because people do not like paying tax. Yet we see here that personal income tax collections, as I pointed out to the House last week, will in fact fall in real terms this year after accounting for inflation, despite the imposition of the 1 Vi per cent surcharge. This is for one very simple reason and that is that the enormous tax reforms we have introduced will have a full year effect this year, despite the Vi per cent tax levy. This should be compared with the 20. 1 per cent rise in tax collections in one year under a Labor Government followed by another year of a 1 9.9 per cent rise. This year we are to have a 0.3 per cent reduction. There will be a fall in real terms in personal income tax paid this year. Yet we hear all this phony nonsense about a disgraceful bike in tax. It is not happening.

I commend the Government for introducing these Bills, which improve the taxation situation and which make it fairer, and I look forward to seeing further legislation which will be aimed at voiding these devices and schemes which have enabled many businessmen to avoid paying tax that should have been paid.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I join in the concern that has been expressed about the fact that these five important tax Bills have been introduced at such short notice, thereby denying Government committees and Opposition committees an opportunity to examine properly the import of the legislation. It is plain as a pikestaff that this Government is on the run. What the guillotining of this legislation really means is that the Government is planning to get out of Canberra just as quickly as possible. It has seen the writing on the wall from the New South Wales elections and the Werriwa by-election. It knows that the people are gravely concerned about the tax measures and that these attitudes of the public at large were expressed in the New South Wales elections last Saturday. From the Government’s point of view, the sooner it wraps up this whole controversy about taxation and gets away from Canberra, the better it will be. That is certainly the way the Government sees the situation and that is why we are debating this legislation today.

Why have these five Bills been introduced at all? It is simply because of the Government’s difficulty following the Budget deficit of over $3,000m last year-more than $ 1,000m greater than was estimated in last year’s Budget. It is just amazing how things which are supposed to be pernicious can suddenly be designated as respectable by this Government. The Labor Government was accused of being ineffective and infamous, for that matter, because of the deficit which it incurred, but that deficit just pales into insignificance compared with the deficits that have occurred since this Government took office.

Of course, this year, as I have said, we are to have another large deficit. Last year the deficit got to $3,300m. The Government has to replenish its coffers. So the tax measures before the House aim to satisfy the Government’s requirements for money. This will be done, firstly, by increasing the tax burden on a large number of Australians and, secondly, by removing some of the more blatant tax avoidance schemes which have sprung up over the years. Of course, we support the removal of the latter. The Government should be condemned for increasing the tax burden. The measures introduced further burden those members of the community least able to pay and least organised to resist the further reduction in their standard of living.

There are six significant issues involved in these tax impositions. I just want to spend a short time saying a few words about each of them. First of all, the tax surcharge of 1 Vi per cent is to apply only for this year. This raises the standard rate of personal income tax from 32 per cent to 33Vi per cent, with corresponding increases to 47½ per cent and 61& per cent at higher income levels. The effect of the surcharge is to wipe out any so-called tax cuts offered by the Government- promised by the Governmentand introduced in February of this year and which were bought by the electorate at the cost of losing many Government-funded support schemes which constitute the social wage of workers and are so important in raising the standard of living of Australians. The tax cuts were a trade-off for cutbacks in programs such as the health scheme, Medibank matters, housing and the environment. These tax cuts, which were the subject of the trade-off, have now been removed. The pay-as-you-earn collections are estimated to rise by 7.1 percent.

The injustice that is involved with these alterations to the tax laws is causing very great concern throughout the Australian community. A family receiving $175 a week will pay 7.3 per cent more tax while a family receiving $300 a week will pay only 5.6 per cent more tax. A family receiving a salary of $1,000 a week will pay only 3.2 per cent more tax. There are not many people in that latter category. They are the very prosperous people. Parliamentarians are advantaged by this. Foremost among them, of course, is the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I do not know his salary offhand but I suppose it is in the vicinity of $ 1 ,000 a week.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No, it is more than that.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You do not think it is?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is $80,000 a year.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member for Hindmarsh would know because he follows these matters very closely. I am just trying to get some perspective into this matter. I thought the Prime Minister’s salary would have been around the $50,000 mark.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is $80,000 but he loses a lot on the farm.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I cannot do that quick calculation. The point I am making is that if the Prime Minister gets $1,000 a week he will pay only 3.2 per cent more tax but the poor old battler on $175 a week has to pay 7.3 per cent more tax. That seems to me to be a very unfortunate situation. I cannot understand how this can be condoned by honourable members opposite. It is unfortunate that their State colleagues in New South Wales had to bear the burden but I think that people’s memories are enduring enough to take a toll of the guilty men when the people go to the polls on some subsequent occasion. I know that the Government thinks these things will be forgotten about in two years time, that people have short memories, but I doubt it. I have never seen such indignation at the polling booths as I saw last Saturday. On many occasions I asked people why they were turning to the Labor Party in such large numbers. Most of us here know the pattern of many voters at local polling booths. I said to many people: ‘I understand that you regard Neville Wran as being a great Premier’. They did not deny that, but many of them said: ‘The real reason for me changing my voting pattern is because of the injustice done; firstly, in respect of the breaking of the promise concerning taxation and, secondly, by putting the burden on to the lower income people ‘.

Sitting suspended from S.S9 to 8 p.m.

Mr LES JOHNSON Before the suspension of the sitting I was discussing the income tax surcharge and the fact that there is a higher percentage tax surcharge on lower incomes than on higher incomes. I want to refer to the additional tax on lump sum retirement payments for unused leave. Unused annual leave payments are to be taxed at a rate of 33.5 per cent. Previously only 5 per cent of such income was taxed as assessable income. The fact is, of course, that the Government has backed off from taxing unused leave payments at 47.5 per cent and 61.5 per cent in the case of higher incomes. This is very disappointing for many people who were planning to use the payment for unused leave as a nest egg for retirement. I suppose all honourable members know of such cases and it is a very distressing situation which the taxpayer tends to regard as a breach of contract. After all, he has entered into an arrangement over a long period in anticipation of some date ahead, the date of retirement. When we consider that a person can have an amount of, say, $3,000 accruing to him and that $ 1 ,000 of it will be swept away in tax, or that a person is entitled to $9,000 in lieu of unused leave and that $3,000 of it will suddenly be grabbed by the Fraser Government, we can understand why people are reacting so bitterly.

The third matter concerns the proposal to abolish tax deductions for housing loan interest payments. This also is a very serious blow to many people and indeed to the depressed housing industry. There are working class, average income people in my electorate who are desperately trying to finance homes 20 miles from the centre of Sydney. They are paying $20,000 for a block of land and are trying to enter into an arrangement with a building society. The tax deductibility of their mortgage interest payments was actually taken into account by the lenders in determining whether they had the capacity to repay these loans. We know that $3m in revenue will be saved in the remainder of this financial year and that $31m will be taken away from these home owners and from the building industry in the next year. That seems to me to be running in the face of all the things that ought to be done by the Government. As any of the building organisations will state, the building industry is facing a crisis. The Master Builders Association is incessantly contending that a critical situation prevails. The housing industry association and architects have made similar submissions. Yet we find this Government putting a deterrent into home building and, worst of all, committing this breach of faith with the home building industry and the young people in this community who have been finding it so difficult in these days of rapid inflation to enter into an arrangement to purchase a home.

I think that I should make some reference to the proposal to tax the incomes of holders of Commonwealth post graduate awards. This scheme was introduced some 19 years ago in 1959, and now for the first time the income received by holders of Commonwealth post graduate awards is to be subjected to taxation. The Government will take from the holders of these Commonwealth awards $600,000 in the remainder of this financial year and $lm in a full year. It does not seem to be a lot of money. To a government it is certainly not a lot of money, but it is a lot of money to these people. All honourable members have received submissions from student organisations. I have in front of me now a submission from the Research Students Association of the Australian National University, which states:

The aim of the scheme is to encourage able students to pursue studies normally leading to the degree of Master or Ph.D. in an Australian University. The scheme encourages post graduate work and research in Australia . . . There are now 2,050 award holders and the allowance has risen to $4,200 with some additional allowances for thesis typing, dependants, travel, et cetera.

The submission continues:

In 1976 64 per cent of post graduate scholars were married … 40 per cent of scholars are supporting a family while undertaking post graduate studies.

The submission goes on to point out that a single scholar receives a scholarship allowance of $4,200. The level at which the income is to be taxed is $3,893. The taxable income will be $307, and at a tax rate of 33.5 per cent the amount of tax payable will be $103. This seems to me to be nitpicking. The Government has closed off so many other options for deriving income tax in terms of resource taxes and matters of that kind- taking additional taxes from industry which, in some instances, is fleecing the Australian community unreasonably. The submission states that the summary of the overall effect on the real value of awards is that the combined effect of the Budget proposals on taxation and changes in Medibank, together with the lack of indexation of awards, is a sharp decline in the real value of the scholarship. The effect with respect to the basic stipend for a single scholar, taking into account the absolute reduction in income due to taxation amounting to $103, the estimate of $50 for medical expenses and the loss due to inflation amounting to $1,236, is a total loss in real terms of $1,389, or 33 per cent. I ask the Government- maybe it is too late- to reconsider this matter.

Another matter concerns tax rebates for dependants residing overseas. These provisions are also being withdrawn in this tax legislation. The cost to the Australian taxpayers and citizens of supporting aged parents and other dependants living overseas is estimated by the Government to be $8m for this year and $20 for a full year. This concerns the taxpayer’s spouse, parents, parents-in-law and invalid relatives. The Government seeks to justify this action with a one line sentence in the Budget Speech, which states:

In many cases the dependant in question may have never been to nor have any intention of coming to Australia. In other cases the provision has led to flagrant abuse.

It is on that criterion that the Government is changing this tax arrangement and withdrawing this benefit. I believe that the provision is aimed essentially at migrant communities throughout Australia. All of the recipients of this tax deduction have been declared guilty without a trial but how many of them are guilty? No evidence of abuse has been put to the Parliament. Even if the abuse exists it does not justify removing the deduction. It is up to the government of the day to tighten up the scheme to prevent abuse, not to abolish the scheme because of the abuse which is occurring possibly on the part of a minority of people. In taking the course of action which is proposed in the legislation before the House the Government is culpable of punishing innocent people. There is also no equity in discriminating among Australian taxpayers solely on the basis that their dependent parents or children are not living in Australia.

The other matter I mention is health insurance. As we know, Medibank Standard is to be abolished and the cost to revenue in a full year will be $30Sm in extra outlays plus $3 16m in reduced receipts. But, of course, this does not mean that the average Australian necessarily will be paying less in the long run because to achieve a greater cover than the 40 per cent offered by the Government Australians will have to insure with a private fund and the cost of this cover is likely to rise as more and more healthy Australians opt not to obtain additional insurance. The worst part of this concept is that the extra amount that has to be paid for through the private insurance funds is applied on a most inequitable basis. That is to say, regardless of the income of the person concerned, everyone who wants more insurance has to pay the same. That is the great difference between the Government’s new proposals and the proposals which operated under the Labor Government’s original Medibank scheme. Under that scheme people payed according to their capacity to pay.

The reason for the Government’s decision to abolish Medibank Standard is not related to the wish to provide a better health care system. It is prompted by an ideological commitment to certain groups of doctors and to put the burden of health care on private health insurance funds and the desire to fortify the Government’s attack on real wages by artificially reducing the consumer price index. I do not think it will be very long before the chickens come home to roost and we see the CPI down as a result of artificial manipulating through this health scheme arrangement. We will then see a reduction in the support that the Government gives to the national health scheme.

I have referred to six very serious situations which represent a deterioration in the taxation arrangements that have operated in this country. I can understand the Government seeking to close off this debate as quickly as it can. These tax arrangements represent a serious breach of faith with the Australian people. The Government’s actions have rankled the Australian constituency. I believe that at the first opportunity the Australian people will show their indignation against the decisions of this Government.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I have never failed to be surprised at the audacity of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). The honourable member is one of the few remaining members of an administration which during a period of two financial years increased the income tax burden on the people of Australia by some 40 per cent- a 20. 1 per cent increase in one financial year and a 19.9 per cent increase in the following financial year. Yet the honourable member for Hughes parades himself in this Parliament tonight and speaks to the people of Australia as one in support of lower income taxation when he was a member of a government which increased taxation more savagely than any government in the history of this country since Federation. The honourable member for Hughes stands condemned as a member of a government which took the stockwhip to the income earners of Australia and said in essence: ‘The harder you work the harder we will tax you’. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), when Treasurer in the final year of the Whitlam Government, achieved for himself the unequalled reputation of being a latter day St Paul before his conversion because if ever a person taxed the people of Australia it was the honourable member for Oxley, who is now the Leader of the Opposition.

I have some interest in taxation because I have campaigned consistently for lower taxation during my time in the Tasmanian State Parliament and in this Parliament. I am very proud to stand in this Parliament as one who has urged a reduction in income tax because I believe that through lower taxes and through lower interest rates this country will get back on its feet. I believe that this Government, even though it comes under criticism from some honourable members opposite, including my friend the honourable member for Hughes, has something to be proud of because it has in fact reduced taxation every year since the 1975 election. If honourable members opposite do not believe me they will find in previous Budget Speeches that the income tax burden in Australia was reduced in three consecutive Budgets in the 1976, 1977 and 1978. I think that three years of reduced income taxation is something of which any government could be proud.

My only disappointment is that in this financial year, because of economic circumstances of which all honourable members would be aware, the amount of reduction in income taxation has not been as substantial as one perhaps otherwise would have hoped. This year, despite the fact that a temporary surcharge of Vh per cent has had to be imposed, Australians will be paying less income tax in 1978 than they paid in 1977. Therefore the record of the Government is somewhat credible. We have been able to reduce the tax burden on the people of Australia. The influence of inflation being taken into account, the fact of the matter is that the tax burden of this country is lower than the tax burden was in the previous financial year.

Dr Klugman:

– That is not true.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member for Prospect says it is not true. I say with the greatest of respect for him that, inflation being taken into account, the tax burden this financial year is lower than it was last financial year. That is a record which in my opinion stands far more open to scrutiny and far more open to public comment than the record of his Government, which increased income tax in this country by 40 per cent in two years. The people of Australia who complain about this Government and this Budget ought to remember that it was under the Whitlam regime, in particular and under the regime of the present Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer, that income tax was increased by 40 per cent. I will repeat the figures: There was a

  1. 1 per cent increase in one financial year and a 19.9 per cent increase the next financial year. If we add these two increases together we get a total increase of 40 per cent. This is the highest tax rake-off ever in the history of Australia.

Rather than be distracted by the beguiling arguments of my friend the honourable member for Hughes I turn to this cognate debate, which involves consideration of no fewer than five separate income tax Bills and something like 15 individual reforms. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) spoke in this debate and I did listen to what he had to say. I listened also to what was said by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume), lt has been said- and I believe this to be a truism- that there is nothing certain in life apart from death and taxes. We do not like either of them, and rightly so. The Government has been forced by the economic position to restrict the tax reform which was commenced last year. The Government has had to impose a temporary surcharge. Certain other reforms which we would have liked to push have not been feasible in all the circumstances.

Last year a group of Government back benchers formed themselves into a loosely knit but nevertheless, I would believe, a somewhat effective politically cohesive force. We called ourselves the Fifty Cent League. We had two objectives. One was to bring about a reduction in the maximum marginal tax rate in Australia from 65c in the dollar, which it then was, to 50c in the dollar. The other objective was to bring in standard rate taxation. I pay tribute to the former Treasurer, Mr Lynch, because it is now history that in the 1977 Budget we introduced standard rate taxation and we reduced the maximum marginal tax rate from 65c in the dollar to 60c in the dollar. No doubt, the intention was that in the next financial year the taxation rate would be reduced from 60c in the dollar to 55c in the dollar and in the third financial year it would move from 55c in the dollar to 50c in the dollar- hence the name of the group of the 50c league. Therefore, it was as much a disappointment to our group as, indeed, it was to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) when he made the comment that it was a matter of personal regret to him that a temporary surcharge of 1 ‘/i per cent was to be imposed for the financial year 1978-79.

One of the Bills with which we are dealing tonight- the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1978- provides in clause 10 for the implementation of the proposal, as a temporary measure for 1978-79 only, that the standard rate of income tax applicable to the taxable income of individuals that exceeds $3,893 is to be increased from 32 per cent or 32c in the dollar to 33.5 per cent or 33.5c in the dollar. Surcharges of 14 per cent and 28 per cent applying from taxable income levels of $16,608 and $33,216 respectively will bring the effective marginal tax rates above those levels to 47.5 per cent and 61.5 per cent. The Treasurer said that this was to be a temporary measure. I can assure all those listening to this debate that it is the wish of the Government and certainly the wish of the back bench members of the Government that it be a temporary measure and that the surcharge which has been imposed for this financial year will expire on 30 June next year and will not be continued.

Mr Armitage:

– What rot and you know it is. Be honest.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member for Chifley can yaffle and waffle as much as he likes, but the fact of the matter is that the Government has made a commitment, and I believe that commitment will not be broken, that this is a temporary surcharge against the general thrust of the tax reductions that we have implemented since our election to government in 1975. It is a temporary aberration which hopefully will expire and which I believe will expire on 30 June next.

I wish to direct my attention now to another matter. Perhaps on this occasion the honourable member for Chifley will not be as critical of my remarks. I refer to the question of the taxation changes with respect to those who are in receipt of Commonwealth postgraduate awards. It is always a difficult line to draw on a Budget matter as to how much one presses an objection to a particular item or matter of concern. The situation with respect to clauses 3 and 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 [No. 2] is that, with effect from 1 November 1978, exemption from tax of benefits paid under the Commonwealth post-graduate award scheme is to be removed. In this debate I wish to make a plea for the consideration of those who have already commenced their post-graduate courses. Some of them are married; others are living together and may well have commitments with respect to children. Others again have entered into a post-graduate course on the basis of what at that time appeared to them to be a reasonably forseeable financial situation.

I do not know whether it is asking too much to make the request that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation ought to be invested with a special discretion in this situation. There are young people attending universities in Australia today under post-graduate awards who may very well have to reconsider their entire future as a result of the potential effect of this amendment. My belief is that it was not the intention of the Government to change the situation, as it were with respect to students who are midway through their courses. I believe that there is an arguable case in respect of persons who are half-way through their post-graduate award courses and who have commenced them on a certain taxation basis for the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to have at least a discretion to alleviate hardship in respect of the cases which will apply as at 1 November. I know that the Government is looking at that matter. I hope it is one which will be pursued. It is my view that when people have commenced post-graduate courses on one basis, it would not be the wish of the Government that they should suffer hardship because of a complete changeabout with respect to the taxation system.

The next matter to which I wish to refer is the question of annual leave. I listened with very great care to the most thoughtful and, if I might say so, persuasive speech of the honourable member for Macarthur. In his position as secretary of the taxation sub-committee section of the Treasury committee which operates under the Government’s back bench committee system, he has devoted a great deal of time and consideration to what has been a very involved and complicated matter. My concern again is with respect to those who through no fault of their own have been prevented from taking annual leave. One can cite without very much difficulty cases in which employees either were asked specifically not to take annual leave or, as is the case in certain State Government departments in Tasmania of which I am aware, where the man concerned was not permitted to take his annual leave.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– There was also the case involving the employee of the Victorian railways.

Mr HODGMAN:

– My colleague the honourable member for Diamond Valley reminds me of the matter raised by a colleague from Victoria, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman), involving an employee of the Victorian Government Railways Department. I think that he accrued something like four years or five years of annual leave which he was not able to take. I am aware of one case concerning an employee of the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania in which the amount involved is $8,000. The employee has not taken annual leave now for a period which exceeds six or seven years. It makes an enormous difference to that man as he approaches retirement whether he is to be taxed on that lump sum payment at the rate of 5 per cent or as if it were normal income. I would not disagree basically with what the honourable member for Macarthur and some honourable members opposite have said. If superannuation payments and long service leave payments were to be taxed as if they were income, which is not the proposal in the Budget, I would not be arguing about the question of annual leave. But I am concerned about the position because it seems to me on the face of it to involve two very important principles. The first one- I compliment the Treasurer because he has not diputed this fact- is that the legislation is to all intents and purposes retrospective’. Whether one takes a legal view or a practical view, whether one talks about rights which have been accrued or about reasonable expectations, the fact of the matter is that I believe the legislation involves the application of retrospectivity and to that extent I find it offensive.

I hope that it is not too late to give to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation a discretion in the case of persons who have not been able to take their annual leave or in the case of persons whose service with the employer is terminated before they can take their annual leave, otherwise I believe that considerable hardship will be caused to a considerable number of innocent people in this country. The amount involved is estimated to be of the order of $70m. It is not an insubstantial amount. But I do not believe that the Parliament should blithely amend or change a situation and deprive people of the rights which they believed they had accrued. I find myself on a point of conscience in virtually an impossible position with respect to supporting this proposed amendment.

I want to draw attention to three remaining points in the time available to me. I will be brief because my colleague the honourable member for Diamond Valley, who has been particularly concerned with the incidence of income tax, wishes to make some remarks on the legislation before the House. I applaud the Government’s decision to make donations to the World Wildlife Fund Australia tax deductible. It is a fund which I believe deserves support and one which I urge should be supported. Perhaps some honourable members will say: ‘What does it really matter?’ The fact of the matter is that World Wildlife Fund Australia, by virtue of clause 6 of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill, is to be acknowledged as a fund to which gifts will be tax deductible. I hope that those who are genuinely concerned about the preservation of the environment and world wildlife generally will be prepared to support the Fund.

I wish to comment also upon the termination of the housing loan interest deduction. Accepting the wisdom of the Government’s decision, I hope nevertheless that in the period from now until the end of the current financial year- that is, to 30 June 1979- we will look at the effect of this amendment. Lastly, could I make one brief comment in relation to the rather wild statements made by the honourable member for Hughes with respect to dependants residing overseas. I do not believe that it is fair to accuse the Government of the sorts of things of which the honourable member for Hughes accused it. My own view is that we have demonstrated ourselves to be a Government concerned with the rights of the individual, and with the right of the individual to have executive and administrative decisions reviewed. The fact that we have set up the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and are progressing with freedom of information legislation demonstrates such a commitment.

My situation in relation to the question of unused annual leave is that as a matter of conscience, I would find it impossible to support that provision. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Government on dropping everything contained on page 22 of the Budget Speech, which dealt with the proposed taxation of social welfare payments. I would like the opportunity to meet face to face the gentleman who came up with the bright idea of taxing people in sheltered workshops, the genius who came up with the idea of taxing non-blind paraplegics. I would really like to meet him.

Mr Armitage:

– You are going to do superannuation next.

Mr HODGMAN:

-The honourable member used to work there and I am not blaming him. I just made the point that there are some people with very interesting ideas on what is and what is not social justice in this country. It has never been my understanding that it was the idea of our party that we would tax newsboys, blind or non-blind paraplegics, and people in sheltered workshops. I am delighted that the proposals on page 22 of the Budget Speech have disappeared from the scene. With those remarks, and with the reservation I have expressed about the question of the retrospective implications in relation to unused annual leave, I support the legislation, but I must in conscience indicate my incapacity to support that particular provision.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-The five Bills before the House are the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1 978, the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1978, the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1978 and the Health Insurance Levy Bill 1978. 1 am afraid that the only Bill in that bevy of five which the Opposition can wholeheartedly support is the Health Insurance Levy Bill, which in fact abolishes the levy previously imposed for health insurance. At the outset may I join with the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who led for the Opposition, in decrying the attitude of the Government. It introduced these Bills into the Parliament on 28 September, which was the Thursday before the House rose, and on the first day on which the House resumes it has brought them on for debate. That does not provide an opportunity for either the Government party meeting or the Opposition party meeting to discuss in depth the Bills now before the Parliament, and I think it is to be decried that the Government is adopting such an attitude. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) spoke with tongue in cheek or with a forked tongue, if I can call it that, when he said that he was opposing certain aspects of these Bills. When we come to a vote I will be most interested to see whether the honourable member either abstains from voting or crosses the floor. It is all right for an honourable member in this Parliament to oppose Bills, but the only real test of a person’s sincerity is when he puts his vote where his mouth is. If the honourable member for Denison chooses not to vote against his own Government on these issues then I think he has been speaking with his tongue in his cheek or with a forked tongue, as I said before.

The main Bill with which the Opposition takes very great issue is the Bill altering the tax rates for the coming year. At the time of the last election I well remember the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He had been foisted into that job. At that stage he was not the Prime Minister of choice. He was Prime Minister not by choice of the electorate but by choice of the then Governor-General. As members of this Parliament and the Australian populace will remember, the democratically elected government was tossed out on 11 November 1975 by the choice of the then Governor-General. The then appointed Prime Minister of Australia, as he was prior to the December 1975 election, and my memory is very clear on this, indicated that at no stage would there be an increase in the income tax rate then applying in Australia. I have no real criticism of the present Treasurer (Mr Howard) because I think he has done an exceptionally good job in many areas, particularly in the area of tax avoidance.

Mr Armitage:

– What about family trusts?

Mr MARTIN:

– The Treasurer has implemented a lot of the policies which I think would have been recommended to him by the Commissioner of Taxation, and I think it is to his credit that he has done so. It is not often that I speak kindly of a Treasurer of the opposite party, but in all conscience I must give credit where credit is due, and I give him credit to that extent. At least he has taken positive steps to try to prevent some of the tax avoidance schemes which have been rampant in this country for many long years. There is only one scheme about which I wish the Treasurer would do something, and I refer to the matter of family trusts. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) has been most outspoken about the lack of action by the Government in respect of family trusts, particularly as they relate to some members of this Parliament. When the matter was raised during Question Time in the House not so very long ago the Prime Minister sought to condone the actions he had taken.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! I ask the honourable member for Banks to address his remarks to the Bills before the House.

Mr MARTIN:

– I am addressing them to those Bills to the extent that I am drawing attention to the fact that the Treasurer pointed out in his second reading speech that legislation had been brought down covering certain tax avoidance schemes, and he itemised them. I am pointing out that so far legislation has not been brought down on one particular tax avoidance scheme. However, I will not push that to any great degree because I know it is a rather touchy subject. I ask the Treasurer to give consideration at an early date to doing something about the family trust legislation. I could understand why taxpayers sought to prevent their estates from being cut to pieces when there was such a thing as probate legislation, when there were such things as estate duty and gift duty, but the stage has been reached when estate duty and gift duty are certainly on the way out so far as the Federal Parliament is concerned even if they are not on the way out in all the States. The need does not exist at the present time for the setting up of family trusts if the reason given for doing so is that a taxpayer wants to make sure that his estate is not dissipated. When a situation exists where there is no estate duty, then there is not the necessity for family trusts to be incorporated. I suggest that the Treasurer might give consideration to the introduction of legislation to prevent the racket, and it is a racket, of family trusts being instituted.

As I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister promised, in fact pledged, that his Government would not increase income tax. In citing the actual figures I refer the House to the Budget Papers which show the estimates of receipts and expenditure. I refer in particular to the figures in respect of pay-as-you-earn taxation, that is, income tax which is collected from salary and wage earners. The collections from that source during the year 1976-77 amounted to $8,528.9m. The collections from that source during 1977-78- this was in the regime of the present Government- amounted to $9,638.8m. That represented an increase of $1,1 10m. The Budget Papers presented to the Parliament on 1 5 August show that the collections from salary and wage earners in respect of PA YE tax for the year commencing on 1 July 1978 and ending on 30 June 1979 are estimated to be $10,341m, which represents an increase of $702m over the receipts from that source for the previous year, 1977-78. So it is the intention of the Government to increase its income tax collections from ordinary salary and wage earners by $1,8 12m between 1976 and 1979. That is not an inconsiderable sum.

I have some quarrel with the honourable member for Denison who suggested that a discretion should be given to the Commissioner of Taxation in regard to the change in the legislation with respect to the taxation of long service leave and/or holiday leave, if that is what we like to call it. In the Public Service it is called recreation leave. I do not know why in the Public Service it is specifically called recreation leave. In private enterprise, in the cold outside world, it is called holidays. There must be some difference in terminology because in the Public Service one goes on recreation leave and in private enterprise in the outside world one goes on holidays. There must be a difference between holidays and recreation. I have never yet found that difference myself. To me any holiday is recreation and any recreation is a holiday.

I say again that this Government has hoodwinked the Australian public by promising to reduce taxation. In its very first Budget after being re-elected it has increased personal income tax by a minimum of 1.5 percent. The Government has acted dishonestly. I do not say that any individual person has acted dishonestly but I say that the Government has acted dishonestly in promising to reduce income tax when in fact it has not done so. The figures which I cited earlier in my speech show that the Government acted dishonestly by promising to reduce income tax when the figures show that in fact there has been not a reduction but a very marked increase. I say also- I say this quite advisedly- that the Australian voting public are very perceptive people. There was a time when sons and daughters would vote as Mum and Dad voted, when wives voted as their husbands did. That day has gone. The present Australian voting public is very discerning. They have shown that in two ways in very recent times. They showed it, first of all, in the Werriwa by-election when there was a marked swing against the Government. Swings are against governments and not necessarily for oppositions. There was a very marked swing in the Werriwa by-election which resulted in the entry into this Parliament of an extremely good man who was previously a member of this Parliament. I refer to the present member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin). I am most pleased to see him back in the chamber. He is a person who will add a great deal to the discussions which take place in this Parliament. The people of the Werriwa electorate showed that they are not prepared to put up with the dishonesty of any government. There was at least a 10 per cent swing against the Government in the Werriwa by-election.

I do not need to go back further than last Saturday to make my second point. Even though Wran was the man in New South Wales, I feel that the result of the New South Wales State election was a demonstration by the people of New South Wales that they were dissatisfied with the performance of this Government, in particular with the Budget it brought down and more particularly with the matters which we are discussing at the present time. There is no more sensitive nerve in a person’s body than the hip pocket nerve. Possibly the greatest Prime Minister Australia has ever had, Ben Chifley, said that what brought him undone was his attack on the hip pocket nerve. That is what will bring this Government undone if it keeps attacking the hip pocket nerve. I hope it comes undone, even though I do not want to see the hip pocket nerve of the average Australian being attacked to an excessive degree.

I think an examination of the figures will reveal that even though the subject of the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill which is before the House is the 1 .5 per cent across-the-board tax increase, the amount of increase for the average and middle income group works out at much higher than that 1.5 per cent. I have seen figures which show that the 1.5 per cent increase in tax results in an average income earner receiving $10,000 a year paying an extra $200 a year in tax. In actual fact that works out to be an increase of 8.5 per cent in tax. It is blatant dishonesty on the part of the Government, in seeking to establish a 1.5 per cent increase in tax, in actual fact to increase it by 8.5 per cent.

At this stage I wish to say something in regard to tax avoidance schemes because it is a subject mentioned by the Treasurer in his second reading speech on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 [No. 2]. He in fact claims credit- I think rightly so- for the foreshadowing of legislation which deals with many of the tax avoidance practices. In his second reading speech he lists the various schemes in relation to which he has either foreshadowed legislation or has brought down legislation for the purpose of stopping these illegal tax avoidance practices. I suggest to the Treasurer that he also give serious consideration to altering section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. If my memory serves me correctly, that section has been in that Act since before 1936. It should be remembered that income tax was introduced in 1918 only as a temporary measure. It has been with us from 1918 to 1978, a period of some 60 years, but it was introduced only as a temporary measure in 1918 to finance the First World War. I think we have to live with that because I do not see the day ever corning when income tax will cease to exist.

In drawing attention to these tax avoidance schemes which are very rampant in the community at the present time, I think it would be true to say that there is something radically wrong with a society which seeks to avoid by any means within its power its taxation liability. I think that leads to another question which we can ask ourselves: Is the society in which we live really sick? Is it a sick society? I am inclined to the view that it is a sick society. I say that having in mind that a certain section of the community is seeking, by fair means or foul, to pass its taxation responsibilities on to another section of the community which is in a worse position to bear those responsibilities.

The taxpayers concerned are not the only ones at fault. There is also something wrong with the profession. I can recall another honourable member today drawing attention to the matter. He was a practitioner in the accounting profession. I was on the other side of the fence before I came into this House in that I worked in the Taxation Office. I believe that there is something wrong with the taxation profession when it holds seminars and when it seeks to induce people to try to escape from their taxation liability. But is there something wrong with the ethics of the people concerned with taxation, whether they be in the accounting profession or whether they be in the legal profession? I think there has been a severe decline in the ethics of such people. The methods employed by the practitioners- I call them that for want of a better name- are certainly parasitical. They are encouraging parasites in the community. On occasions I have called them bludgers but I think ‘parasites’ is a much nicer word. At least a parasite is an insect. I do not know what a bludger is. It has some connotation but I am not certain what it is. I call them parasites because an insect is an insect and the legal practitioners and practitioners in the accounting profession are encouraging these parasites- that is what they are- to enforce and to transfer their just liability onto other people who are in a less fortunate position to bear that responsibility.

I think it is axiomatic that in any government there is a certain amount of revenue which has to be collected and it has to be collected proportionately over the section of population which can afford to pay that proportion of taxation. If somebody else has to bear that unfair proportion it means that the person who is forcing that other person to do it is a parasite. I think that the Act is in very great need of redrafting. I think that has come out of all the legislation that has been before this House. The Income Tax Assessment Act was simplified in 1936, is now four times as big, and it has been simplified ever since. I think what is needed is a real look at the Income Tax Assessment Act; it needs to be redrafted. I well remember the words of Chief Justice Dixon many years ago in a High Court case when he was asked to define income. He said: ‘If I was asked to define income I would say income is what comes in’. I think if that was a definition in the Income Tax Assessment Act we would not have any of the problems we have today.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– I would be very happy to enter into a wide-ranging debate on taxation and taxation reform. If it were not for the fact that I want to raise one specific matter, I would do so. However, at this stage I will content myself by associating myself completely with those parts of the remarks made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) when he paid credit to the Government for the continuous series of tax reforms which it has introduced since it came to government. This has been, and remains, a government of tax reform. It is a government of tax reform because tax reform and the lessening of the incidence of taxation is consistent with the Government’s philosophy. There is one part of the remarks of the honourable member for Denison with which I would not agree and that is when he advocated that additional discretion should be given to the Taxation Commissioner. I would have thought by and large that there are probably enough discretions given to the Taxation Commissioner as it is at the moment and, particularly in view of the fact that most of the taxation legislation now passed is incomprehensible, it seems to me highly undesirable to give him any more discretion than he already has although undoubtedly he exercises the discretion he has with good faith and good intentions, for which I give him credit.

I turn to the single specific matter concerning this legislation to which I want to draw attention. It is by way of drawing attention to an anomalyperhaps an intentional, anomaly, I do not know- in clause 22 of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, and to suggest that it does not meet the Government’s intention to reflect the temporary increase of 1.5 per cent in the standard rate of tax. I should make one point perfectly clear at the outset. When we talk about provisional taxpayers we are not necessarily talking about high income earners. A person may be subject to the payment of provisional tax and yet be a very low income earner. What has happened in this case is that unfortunately- I use that word advisedly- it appears that the provisions of clause 22 of this Bill reflect an increase of11/2 per cent over the composite rate for the year1977-78 proposed in the Fifth Schedule to the Income Tax (Rates) Act and not a 11/2 per cent increase over the rates imposed for the year 1978-79 in the Ninth Schedule of that amended Income Tax (Rates) Act.

The Government is fully entitled to alter the rate of tax for the current financial year and to raise provisional tax in accordance with the rates as amended, but what clause 22 appears to be trying to do is to to levy provisional tax on the basis of a tax rate which has never been in operation and which never will be in operation. Let me explain what that means. Clause 22 requires two components to be added together. The first is the amount of last year’s income tax paid by the provisional taxpayers. The second is1 .5 per cent of last year’s taxable income. That is what the provisional taxpayer will be obliged to pay this year subject to other qualifications in the section. The point is that that is not an increase of11/2 per cent in tax nor does it reflect in the case of provisional taxpayers the temporary increase of 11/2 per cent in the standard rate of tax. It is an obligation to pay again the sum of last year’s tax and, in addition,11/2 per cent of last year’s income.

It does not reflect- this was said to be the intention but it is not the intention- an increase of 11/2 per cent in the standard rate of tax because last year’s income tax was not a payment at the standard rate of tax on income but an assessment of provisional tax. So the Bill takes from the provisional taxpayer this year the whole of last year’s tax and11/2 per cent of last year’s income. The increased payment is an increase on a rate of tax which never was a rate of tax, properly so called, and which never will be. Therefore, provisional taxpayers will have to pay much more than an increase of11/2 per cent, to put it in simple terms. Some rough calculations have been made to make this clearer and the calculations are as to the differences between the provisional tax rate proposed under clause 22 and the actual rate of tax for1978-79 which is proposed by the new Ninth Schedule pursuant to the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1978. These are increases or decreases as compared with the actual rates. I have already obtained the consent of the Opposition and I ask for leave to incorporate in

Hansard a list of those calculations.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows- $3,402-$3,750-Increase of 281/2 per cent. $3,750-$3,893-Increase of 30.585 per cent. $3,893-$6,266-Decrease of 2.91 5 per cent. $6,266-$ 12,532-Increase of1.749 percent. $12,532-$16,000-Increase of 7.579 per cent. $16,608-$ 1 8,798-Decrease of0.583 per cent. $18,798-$25,063-Increaseof5.547 per cent. $25,063-$3 1 ,329-Increase of 8.1 62 per cent. $31 ,329-$32,000-Increase of11 .077 per cent. $32,000-$33,2 1 6-Increase of1 6.91 5 per cent. $33,216 and above- Increase of2. 915 percent.

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– When you come to look at this list in Hansard you will find that the increase in the case of the provisional taxpayer earning between $3,750 and $3,893 is not 1.5 per cent at all, nor is it 5 per cent nor10 per cent but an increase of over 30 per cent, and so it goes on. For instance, we find there is an increase of over 8 per cent for taxpayers earning between roughly $25,000 and $31,000. Any reflection of an increase of 11/2 per cent is rather difficult to see. It must have been an oversight to have permitted such differentials between the provisional rates of tax and the true rates of tax for the years 1978-79. A letter has been sent to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) from a distinguished Melbourne Queen’s Counsel setting out this and some related matters. I am sure that the Treasurer will have regard to the matters contained in that letter and to the matters that I have put forward in the course of these brief remarks tonight. I hope that when the legislation is before the Senate some opportunity will be taken to rectify this anomaly. None of that can depart in any way at all from the recognition that should be given to this Government as being a government of tax reform.

In the course of a number of measures the Government has lessened the incidence of the tax burden on all citizens. As I have said previously, this is consistent with the Government’s philosophy because since it came to government it has sought to leave with the taxpayer as much of his own resources as possible so that he can exercise his own decision and judgment as to the way in which he wishes to spend that money. Of course, in his remarks the honourable member for Denison drew attention to the Vh per cent surcharge which will be imposed in this year. One can understand the reasons that led to the imposition of that surcharge. One can also understand the concern of the Government that it was necessary to introduce that surcharge. However, let us remind ourselves that it is a temporary surcharge and not a permanent exaction from the taxpayers of Australia. We should remind ourselves of that not just because of the amount of money involved which will have to be paid by individuals but also because it is part of the overall taxation situation. This Government, State governments and governments of comparable countries cannot continue with this continuous exaction from the efforts and the incentive of the citizens who produce the real wealth in the community. With an increase in taxation we find an increasing dependence by people on governments for what governments do in return for the taxes they levy. I draw attention to these matters very briefly because I have no doubt whatsoever that the Government is committed to taxation reform, that it has demonstrated that and that it will continue to demonstrate it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Before I call the honourable member for Corio, I must say that I must have been asleep a little while ago and did not ask the honourable member for Prospect to withdraw an inference against another member of this House. I will not ask him to do so now.

Mr Armitage:

– What did he say?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member must have been talking or he would have heard. I ask the honourable member for Prospect not to make such remarks again or he will be asked by the Chair to withdraw.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-These pieces of legislation are being forced through the Parliament in one day. The normal conventions of this

House have been breached in that the Government did not allow for a party meeting of the Opposition to take place between their introduction and their debate in this House. They have been guillotined through because the Government feels impelled to get them out of the way. In the first instance, the Government was not game to bring them into the House at the time it indicated that it would do so- on Tuesday of the last sitting week- because it was not confident that it could rely on the support of its own members. For that I do not blame the Treasurer (Mr Howard). If it had not been laid clearly on the line that this was a matter of confidence in the Government, the Government would not have been able to rely on its own members with regard to these pieces of legislation. They were introduced on the last day of the previous sitting period and they are being debated on the first day of the current sitting period.

Mr Baillieu:

– You have had a whole week to work on it.

Mr SCHOLES:

– We may have been able to manage it in that time. Unfortunately the honourable member did not have to try. This legislation contains some very curious and innocuous provisions, but it does not contain the provisions which we would have expected it to contain. Honourable members opposite keep talking about the levy on income tax, which is expected to raise some $600m in this year, as being a temporary provision. Income tax was introduced in Britain during the Napoleonic Wars as a temporary provision and I would suggest to the Treasurer, unless he has some hidden treasure which he has not yet disclosed, that this will be just as temporary a measure. There are a number of one-off provisions in the Budget and in the Treasurer’s accounting which will not be available for his accounting next year and which will have to be replaced by other forms of revenue, if the Government’s undertaking is to be met. The income tax surcharge is one of those provisions. If the Budget figures are correct, since the Budget was introduced changes have eroded nearly $200m off the Government’s income or have added that amount of money to the expenditure provisions. For instance, it has already been announced that the estimates for unemployment benefits are $ 100m under the presently projected figure.

The Government made a lot of noise and Government members continually make a lot of noise about their support for home ownership in Australia. This is an act of faith with people speaking on behalf of the Government parties which is reflected neither in this legislation nor in actual events in this Parliament. One of these pieces of legislation takes away from first home purchasers on combined incomes below $14,000 the tax deductibility of all or a portion of their interest payments on mortgages and thus adds to the cost of buying a home. To obtain total deductions one has to be on an income of less than $160 a week, which would almost render one ineligible for a loan without the assistance of this provision. The Government is wiping out the provision in one fell swoop. It says that it is justified in doing so because the measure is designed purely to raise revenue, but by doing so it will add something like $30m to the costs of purchasing homes for many thousands of Australians. Many people entered into mortgages on the basis of this tax concession being available and with confidence that the Government would meet the commitment which was given to young home owners, many of whom are partly through the first 10-year period of the repayment of their mortgages. Other people who would have been planning to purchase a home are in not dissimilar circumstances. They have to borrow another $2,000 because the Treasurer cannot meet the obligation which was given in the 1975 election campaign with regard to homes savings grants, which are not contained in this legislation but in respect of which the Government’s actions are comparable in taking away the home interest deductibility scheme. In both instances the person most in need and in difficulties and with the least borrowing powers will be the person who suffers most. Such people have to borrow an additional $2,000 which the Goverment promised them as an election promise and made a lot of fuss about. To have to borrow that additional money is a repudiation of the worst type. Despite the bits of papers being sent out by the Minister responsible, which are fraudulent documents because they have neither the financial backing of the Government nor guarantees from this Parliament that that money will be available, there is no undertaking that the Treasurer next year is going to increase the expenditure for homes savings grants from $20m to something like $ 1 60m which will be the amount needed to meet the commitments for this year in addition to the total commitments which will fall due next year. This legislation also has a very serious provision for retrospectivity in respect of accumulated annual leave which is something the Government has said in the past that it does not agree with.

Mr Howard:

– That is not right. You don’t understand what the term means.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Not right?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is making a speech to the Chair quite successfully. I advise him to continue to do so.

Mr SCHOLES:

-The Government has indicated that amounts received in lieu of accrued annual leave will not be taxed at the ordinary rate, and the only concession of which I am aware is that it will be set aside from the normal annual income of the person concerned and taxed as a separate item. That means an increase of about 25 per cent in the rate of tax in that area.

Because the Treasurer is apparently not aware of the real circumstances of many people, I would point out to him that persons are not always able to take their annual leave when it is due because of circumstances in their employment. Governments are the worst offenders in this regard because they will not always release employees for the full period of accrued annual leave which is available to them. In such cases an accrument of available annual leave takes place every year. A number of persons who were approaching retirement age would have decided that it was not unreasonable not to take their accrued annual leave in the last year or the last couple of years of their service. Now they will pay a penalty of 25 per cent not because they have deliberately not taken their annual leave but in many cases because they have not been able to take such leave. I would point out that during the period that I was an employee of the Victorian Railways there were many employees who had accrued annual leave of up to one year because they were not allowed to take the full amount of leave owing to them each year and in some instances they were not granted their leave at all.

For the Treasurer’s benefit I would point out that in recent years there have been employees in this Parliament who, because of the sittings of the Parliament and because they were required to be present in the Parliament during that period, were not able to take the leave which had accrued, some of it as a result of a leave credit as opposed to payments of overtime which were not allowed within Public Service awards under which they worked. Those people who could not take their leave because of circumstances beyond their control will now have an increase of 25 per cent retrospectively placed on those accruals. If the Government wishes to change the form of taxation then existing accruals should not be counted. The Government has exempted them in the case of long service leave. I think the Treasurer ought to take into consideration quite seriously the fact that in many instances annual leave is in much the same circumstance. A person taking a long period of accrued annual leave, expecially at a late period of his employment, could seriously disrupt the organisation for which he works. The organisation might not have been prepared or might not have been able to grant annual leave during an earlier period when it fell due.

I raise one other matter in this legislation. Among the various changes in taxation there is an announcement that donations to the World Wildlife Fund Australia will be tax deductible in future. I do not dispute that measure at all. I do think though that it is most likely the Fund would have been much happier if the amount spent on feting the president of the Fund and his wife when they were in Australia recently had been donated to it. I am sure it would have been more appreciated by everyone concerned. What I ask the Treasurer is: Why one particular organisation? Who does Community Aid Abroad have to bring to Australia in order to get its extremely valued work outside Australia accepted as tax deductible. Why are organisations such as the Freedom From Hunger Campaign and others which are doing very significant work and contributing greatly to Australia ‘s reputation abroad left out?

Dr Klugman:

– You are not going to compare human beings with wildlife, are you?

Mr SCHOLES:

-I think the organisation concerned is also an important organisation. But what I want to know is how the Government striked its rationale. What is the rationale by which this particular decision is taken while other organisations which have been appealing to governments for years have always been rejected on the basis, and I presume still are -

Mr Howard:

– If you sat down I might have the chance to reply.

Mr SCHOLES:

-You put the guillotine on this debate, my friend, not I. If you want to speak in debates you make arrangements with the Opposition on debates; but if you want to ride roughshod over the Parliament that is your business.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member will address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr SCHOLES:

-With this legislation the Government is showing very clearly where it stands on the question of income tax. The concessions which are being taken away are those which will disadvantage most of those on the lowest income. I wonder what the Treasurer has done about the book that is advertised every week on the back of the National Times? The advertisement says that for $10 a person can buy a book which will tell him how to avoid paying all income tax. Rydge’s Journal publish the book so the Treasurer will know where to find his tax avoidance schemes. Rydge’s guarantee that if a person follows the advice given in that book he will not have to pay any tax at all. He will not even have to go into the sorts of schemes which some people enter into for tax avoidance purposes. I would have thought that the publication of that sort of information would have been illegal under the various income tax Acts, but apparently it is not. If it is possible, as claimed in this advertisement by what is supposedly a reputable journal, to purchase a tax scheme for $10 that will enable one to avoid all forms of income tax, then I suggest that someone else has to pay, and the person who has to pay is, of course, the wage and salary earner who is on -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for all stages of the Bills has expired. The question now is: ‘That the Bills be now read a second time’.

A division having been called, and the bells being rung-

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I think it should be pointed out that the Opposition does not oppose all provisions of the Bills, but it has no opportunity to vote selectively on the Bills or the provisions of the Bills.

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 30

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

Question put:

That the remaining stages of the Bills be agreed to.

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 30

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a third time.

page 1641

DISCUSSION OF MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Mr Speaker has received advice from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) that he has withdrawn the matter of public importance which he had submitted for discussion today.

page 1641

STATES GRANTS (ROADS) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON (Gippsland-Minister for

Transport) (9.34)- I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 by providing an additional $33m in Commonwealth Grants to the States for roadworks in both 1978-79 and 1979-80. The Bill also provides for an increase in quotas for State road expenditure from their own resources. Honourable members will be aware that the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 currently provides for grants totalling $475m to be made available to the States in each of the three years 1977-78 to 1979-80. In introducing the legislation in September last year, I announced that it was the Government’s intention to adjust the grants for 1978-79 and 1979-80 so that they would be maintained at a level equivalent in real terms to the 1977-78 amount. The Bill now before the House will give effect to this undertaking by providing for the level of the grants for 1978-79 and 1979-80 to be increased to $508m. This is an increase of almost 7 per cent over the amount provided in 1977-78 and is based on a forecast rate of price movements in 1978-79. The Government considers that the increased level of funds for roads for which this Bill provides represents a very substantial commitment, having regard to the continuing policy of restraint in public expenditures that it has had to adopt. The increase will be applied equally to all States.

Honourable members will be aware that, in allocating its grants for 1977-78, the Government made it clear that its priorities were to ensure that the road needs of local authorities were adequately covered and that emphasis was maintained on the funding of the national road network and rural arterial roads. The additional moneys which this Bill provides have in general been allocated among road categories pro rata to the existing allocations. This will effectively ensure that the priorities inherent in these allocations are maintained. There has been a slight departure from the pro rata approach in the case of South Australia. The indexation adjustment that would normally have been added to the National Commerce Roads category has instead been applied to the National Highways Construction category. This has been done to assist the State in meeting the Commonwealth’s request that work to the value of Sim be undertaken on the Stuart Highway during 1 978-79. In line with the Government’s view that road funding is a responsibility of all three levels of government, each State will be required to fund an increased quota of road expenditure from its own resources in order to qualify for Commonwealth assistance. The Government has decided that State expenditure quotas for 1978-79 should be increased by the same percentage as the Commonwealth grants. I should emphasise that the quotas represent minimum expenditure requirements which the States are free to exceed according to the priority which they attach to their road programs.

It is pleasing to note that in recent years a number of States have exceeded their quotas by a significant amount. It is fair to say, however, that having regard to the increases in Commonwealth general revenue assistance that have been made available in recent years, the States have been well placed to substantially increase their own road funding efforts. The details of the legislation are quite straight-forward. The Bill provides for the repeal of the Schedules to the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 and for their replacement with new Schedules setting out the increased Commonwealth grants by road categories and the increased State quotas. The Bill also provides for a further minor amendment to update the reference in the principal Act to the Commonwealth transport planning and research legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 1642

HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

On Thursday 28 September 1978 I introduced the Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 and the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, the provisions of which give effect to the Government’s health insurance arrangements to operate from 1 November 1978. The Bill before the House amends the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 and establishes the role of the Health Insurance Commission in these new arrangements. In framing the revised charter of the Commission, it is the clear intention of the Government that Medibank Private will operate in a competitive position with other health insurance organisations and should be in as flexible a position as possible, having in mind that there is a statutory relationship with the Commonwealth as a Commonwealth authority.

Before commenting on the specific matters covered by the Bill, I would like to inform honourable members that the principles embodied in the legislation relating to the employment of the staff by the Commission have been discussed with representatives of relevant staff associations whose members are affected by the Government’s proposals. I wish to express my appreciation of the considerations and views put forward by the staff association representatives. The Government has taken into account the views of the staff associations in the framing of this legislation.

The Bill may be divided into four principal parts:

Firstly, the reconstitution of the Health Insurance Commission; Secondly, the removal of the Medibank Standard functions and the continued operation of Medibank Private; Thirdly, provisions relating to the engagement of staff by the Commission after 1 November 1978 and the terms and conditions applying to the staff; and Fourthly, the transitional provisions necessary to effect the changeover to the new functions of the reconstituted Commission.

Whilst the Bill does not, in any way, affect the corporate identity of the existing Health Insurance Commission, it does, by the amendments contained in clause 11, provide for the Commission to be reconstituted. Before outlining the constitution of the new Commission, I would like to record the Government’s appreciation of the work of the retiring commissioners. There have been substantial changes to the health insurance arrangements during their period of office. It is an indication of their administration that Medibank has continued to operate efficiently and effectively. On behalf of the Government, I would also like to express my appreciation to the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission, Mr Ray Williams, and all his staff for the excellent and dedicated work they have done since Medibank ‘s inception. I wish the General Manager and the organisation success in the future operation of Medibank Private. The new Commission is to be constituted by up to seven Commissioners, including a Chairman and the General Manager of Medibank. All Commissioners, with the exception of the General Manager, will be appointed by the Governor-General on a part-time basis, for a period, not exceeding five years, specified in the instrument of appointment.

The abolition of Medibank Standard and the transfer to the Department of Health of the administration of various Commonwealth benefits and payments now made by the Commission, means the principal functions of the new Commission will be the management of Medibank Private and payment of the new Commonwealth medical benefit on the same basis as other registered health insurance organisations. The performance of these functions is reflected in the amendments made in clauses 7 and 8 of the

Bill. Clause 10 of the Bill provides for the Commission to perform such other functions in relation to health insurance as the Minister directs. This provision enables the Commission to pursue government policy objectives in health insurance where so directed. Initially, the only additional function to Medibank Private and the payment of the Commonwealth medical benefit will be the payment of medical benefits under the winding-down of the Medibank Standard functions of the Commission. The Bill provides for any direction of the Minister, relating to additional functions to be performed by the Commission, to be included in the annual report of the Commission. Further, provision is also made for the Minister for Health and the Commission to enter into an agreement for the payment to the Commission of administrative expenses arising out of the performance of functions which are the subject of a direction by the Minister for Health.

In order that the Commission can compete with the private health funds on an equal footing, the Bill provides that the Commission will no longer be required to seek Public Service Board approval of its terms and conditions of employment and will be subject to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Clauses 32 and 33 of the Bill contain transitional provisions to protect the terms and conditions of existing staff of the Commission. Any changes to the terms and conditions of existing staff will, of course, be discussed by the Commission with relevant staff associations. I should also mention that the Commission management has already agreed with the staff associations that the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act and the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act should continue to apply to all staff of the Commission and the Bill has been drafted to take account of this.

The Bill provides that the Commission may establish and conduct its own superannuation scheme. However, the intention is that staff who are contributors to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme at the time of the introduction of the Commission’s superannuation scheme, or who join the Commission thereafter and are already contributors to Commonwealth superannuation scheme, will retain such membership. Persons who join the Commission staff after the introduction of its scheme, and who are not already contributors to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, will be able to elect to join the Commission’s superannuation scheme or request to be treated under the Superannuation Act 1976. The Bill, in clauses 16,17,19 and Part III gives effect to the above proposals.

Part IV of the Bill contains transitional provisions. It is accepted that, with the abolition of the Medibank Standard functions of the Commission, there is likely to be a significant number of surplus staff. Discussions have already been held between the relevant staff organisations, my Department, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Commission and the Public Service Board about this situation. In the first instance they have concentrated on the transfer of staff associated with bulk billing functions to my Department. At this stage I am unable to give any accurate indication of the number of staff who may ultimately be surplus to the requirements of the Commission as this will be dependent on the market share obtained by the Commission. However, the Bill in clause 31 recognises the need for action to be taken and provides for the Public Service Board to be involved in the redeployment of surplus staff. There will be continuing discussions with the staff associations on this aspect as the situation develops.

The remaining provision of the Bill to which I would specifically draw the attention of honourable members is clause 34. This provision enables a reconciliation to be effected of the assets andliabilities of the Commission as at 31 October 1978. The Bill provides for the Commonwealth to pay to the Commission an amount which represents the liabilities of the Commission, both current and contingent, which are attributable to the Medibank Standard functions of the Commission. Similarly, provision is included for the Commission to pay to the Commonwealth an amount that represents the value of the assets of the Commission acquired by the Commission in carrying out its Medibank Standard functions. The purpose of this transitional provision is to provide for a distribution of assets and liabilities which properly relates to each of the Medibank Standard and Medibank Private functions as at 31 October 1978. The remaining provisions in the Bill are consequential amendments relating to the reconstitution of the Commission; the abolition of the Commission’s Medibank Standard functions; and the inclusion in the Act of more relevant provisions, applying generally to statutory corporations, concerning borrowing and investments by the new Commission and the entering into of contracts by the Commission. I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Klugman) adjourned.

page 1644

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1978-79

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 28 September.

Schedule 2.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $95,907,000.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-This morning the Australian Broadcasting Commission news reported a most unfortunate incident at Goulburn Island in the Northern Territory. The Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, arrived at the Island to a very hostile reception from a large portion of the Island’s population. After about10 minutes on the Island, Mr Yunupingu was told by the community to get back into his aircraft and leave. I believe it is a very disturbing situation that an Aboriginal community should hold so much hostility and ill feeling towards a chairman of the land council which is supposed to represent its interests and carry out its wishes. This lack of confidence in the Northern Land Council is not restricted to Goulburn Island. The last few weeks have seen expressions of dissatisfaction from Milingimbi, Croker Island, Elcho Island, Borroloola and other communities. The divisions and bitterness which today surround the Northern Land Council have only one single cause: It is the attempts of the Fraser Government to manipulate and intimidate the Northern Land Council and the Aboriginal communities which it represents into accepting uranium mining on Aboriginal land. The blame for the unfortunate events at Goulburn Island lies fairly and squarely in the lap of this Government.

Mr Roger Johnston:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to take a point of order. The subject matter before the Committee is the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The honourable member is not speaking on that subject.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage)The honourable member for Reid is speaking about the subject of Aboriginal affairs, as I understand it.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Not the estimates.

Mr UREN:

-As I was -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The matter before the Chair at the moment is the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– It is the estimates.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member for Reid at present is dealing with a matter associated with the Department. I want to make it clear that these debates on the estimates for various departments are wide-ranging debates. These items of expenditure deal with different subjects -

Mr UREN:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, my time is limited.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I call the honourable member for Reid.

Mr UREN:

– The blame for these unfortunate events at Goulburn Island lies fairly and squarely in the lap of this Government. The Government’s overriding concern is to get the Ranger agreement signed as soon as possible. It does not care what happens to the Northern Land Council in the process. It does not care if its tactics turn black people against each other, as was the case at Goulburn Island yesterday. It has ignored the well-informed warnings of Dr Coombs that hostility and possible violence will result if the traditional Aboriginal processes of decision making are not gone through before any agreement is signed.

The Government’s tactics have been to undermine the ability of the Northern Land Council to fight for Aboriginal interests. It has used threats to convince the Chairman of the Northern Land Council that the Council’s position is not secure unless the agreement is signed soon. It has used the white manager, Mr Alex Bishaw, a public servant from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, to manipulate at every stage of the Council’s consideration of the Ranger agreement. He has used all the old bureaucratic tricks of restricting the flow of information and issuing 1 1th hour notices for meetings in order to keep Aboriginal communities in the dark. We have only to look at the remarks of one of the two Aboriginals who took the court action three weeks ago. When asked if he had seen the draft Ranger agreement, he said that he did not know he was allowed to see it. He said that he thought it was the Government ‘s business. This indicates the success of the bureaucratic intimidation of Mr Bishaw. It is about time that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), who is sitting at the table, took some action in respect of this Mr Bishaw and had an inquiry made into his activities.

Mr Bishaw ‘s intimidatory remarks made to the Northern Land Council meeting which considered the draft Ranger agreement are on the record. He is also on the record in the NorthernTerritory News of 28 September admitting that he lied to the Northern Land Council regarding a statement by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bob Hawke, in order to convince the Council that it would not get trade union support. It was only a little over two weeks ago that the Government ‘s efforts to rush a start to uranium mining foundered because of the courageous action of several Aboriginal communities whose members resisted the Government’s bullying and demanded an opportunity to examine and discuss the Ranger agreement in their own language. But the Government has not let up. It is still trying to get the agreement signed without full consultation according to section 23(3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.

The tactics of the Government now are to exclude all communities except Oenpelli from the consultation program. Its hope is that it can snow what is a particularly frightened and repressed community. Mr Bishaw has tried to divide communities by telling the Oenpelli people that the people of Goulburn and Croker Islands, who have led the fight for more time to examine the draft agreement, just want to take away royalties from Oenpelli. Mr Bishaw has already completely pre-empted any consideration by the people of Oenpelli by announcing last Tuesday that the agreement would not now be signed within a month. He said this before the task of translating the agreement into the Oenpelli language, itself a lengthy process, had even begun.

The Government’s role in this matter became even clearer when Liberal Senator Neville Bonner turned up at the Northern Land Council meeting on Monday. No whites were allowed at that meeting but Senator Bonner was allowed to attend. He made the Goverment ‘s position clear when he said after the meeting that ‘the Oenpelli people fully realise that uranium mining will eventually take place’. That is an intimidatory statement in itself. The Government’s shabby performance has been ably assisted by many sections of the media which continually misrepresent the Aboriginal position as being a concern only for what they can get from mining royalties. I am reminded by a shoddy piece of journalism entitled ‘The Uranium Debate: A Shift from Morals to Dollars ‘ by Peter Bowers in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 May this year. Nowhere have I seen an honest effort by Mr Bowers or any other members of the Press gallery who have made these allegations of misrepresentation to clarify the situation. None of them has clearly spelt out the Aboriginal evidence presented in the Fox report. I stress to those honourable members who are too lazy to understand the position that they should read page 9 of the second Fox report. The report clearly sets out that those people of the Northern Land Council and at

Oenpelli are opposed to the mining of uranium on their land.

Nowhere in the Press have I seen reports or analyses of the unprecedented mobilisation of Aboriginal communities in Arnhem Land over recent weeks. A rally of over 800 people was held on Elcho Island on 21 September to oppose uranium mining. This was a truly historic event for Northern Territory Aborigines. But there was barely a murmur from the national Press about it. Instead we had the false reporting that the Labor member for Arnhem Land, Mr Bob Collins, had initiated the court action which prevented the signing of the Ranger agreement. The Press in general did not correct that mistake. There was no substantial effort to report the facts. This action has been taken by representatives of two communities and is supported by many others. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from an Aboriginal community representative which appeared in the Northern Territory News on 2 October.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage) -

Is leave granted?

Mr Viner:

– No, I have not seen it.

Mr UREN:

-I had the agreement of the Minister in charge of the House and I seek leave to have the letter incorporated.

Mr Viner:

– No, I have not seen it. Could I have a look at it?

Mr UREN:

– My time is short. I will be cut out of my time. I showed it to the Minister.

Mr Baillieu:

– Which Minister?

Mr UREN:

-The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) authorised me. If you want to challenge my word, Mr Minister -

Mr Viner:

– I want to know what you are asking to incorporate.

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

The document read as follows-

Sir, I was one of the Aboriginal people who came to Darwin on behalf of my community to stop the Ranger Agreement being signed.

I am upset the way the newspapers and radio keep saying that we have set back the mining and that white people got us to do it.

If the Government, the mining companies and the business firms all made plans before they got our go-ahead then they should take the consequences of their rush. It’s not our fault.

This Ranger Agreement is complicated and we need time to talk about it properly.

It was the Government and the miners who rushed the Northern Land Council and wouldn’t give us enough time to think.

We have important responsibilities for the land under our own law.

We are not being selfish but we have equal rights so why is everyone trying to stomp on us, put us in corners with pressure and telling us to keep our mouths shut? This is discriminating against us.

We were all unhappy that Mr Viner and other people rubbished those white people who we got to help us.

Bob Collins is our Member of Parliament and only did what he was told by us.

Our lawyers are there to help us. No one told us what to do. We can make up our own minds.

No one wanted to have a court case. We wanted to stand together and our advisers and us tried hard to work things out quietly but then we had to go to court because we had no choice any more.

Now we will work it out together. I hope the Government and the miners will leave as alone to think about it without rushing us again.

Community Representative

Mr UREN:

– The Minister was just foxing to use up my time. It is a sad situation. The letter states in part:

I am upset the way the newspapers and radio keep saying that we have set back the mining and that white people got us to do it.

If the Government, the mining companies and the business firms all made plans before they got our go-ahead then they should take the consequence of their rush. It’s not our fault.

This Ranger Agreement is complicated and we need time to talk about it properly.

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

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

-I think that we are all a little tired of the total obsession of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). (Quorum formed). In the 1978-79 Budget a total of $120m has been allocated for Aboriginal affairs, and it is worth noting that this represents a 9. 1 per cent increase over last financial year in total expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. I think we all ought to compliment the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) for being able to achieve that result in what were undoubtedly very tight Budget discussions in Cabinet. It is pleasing to see that the Government has given this high degree of priority to Aboriginal affairs.

I want to comment on just a few items in that total expenditure to indicate how they support some of the developments in government policy with respect to Aboriginal affairs. For example, there is one rather small but significant item in terms of its meaning for policy under the heading of ‘Training’. (Quorum formed). A total of $2.5m has been earmarked for specific training programs, and of that amount $800,000 has been allocated to new projects. This year these training items have been isolated from general functional areas such as health, education and employment. This has been done so that the separate allocation can be identified and shown to be the commencement of a special effort in this area to equip Aborigines with the management and other skills necessary to underwrite the Government’s policy of self-management. Indeed, support for that policy of selfmanagement with adequate training opportunities is most important. There is a need in many Aboriginal communities to re-establish confidence and self-respect in relation to their own identity and their own ability to make decisions and to occupy an equal place and take an equal part in the Australian community.

I want to mention specifically the expenditure that will be allocated for employment activities. Almost $7m will be provided for the employment of Aborigines, particularly those in remote areas. One can refer specifically to the Community Development Employment Scheme, which last year began as a pilot project and which this year will be continued and expanded to include a new project at Papunya. This will bring to 776 the total number of Aborigines employed under the scheme. In addition, nearly half of the total allocation for employment activities will provide additional employment opportunities for 650 Aborigines through special work projects in all States. I want to comment on some of the problems that will face the Government in the future in respect of the provision of employment opportunities for Aborigines. It is a long term problem because in many of the more isolated rural areas where Aborigines traditionally live there has been a decline in recent years in traditional forms of employment. In particular I refer to the situation with respect to employment on pastoral properties, a standard form of employment for Aborigines in years gone by. With a series of rural recessions, with the advent of greater mechanisation in farm work and pastoral activities, and also having regard to increases in award wage rates, many of the pastoral managers in these areas find it impossible to continue to employ any labour at all, and in particular Aboriginal labour. This has some social effects as well as economic effects. (Quorum formed). One cannot but notice that even after the ringing of the bells for the quorum there are only three Opposition members sitting in the chamber. On the other hand, the Government benches are packed with members who are taking a great interest in this debate.

Before I was rudely interrupted I was making the point that the decline in employment in pastoral industries for Aboriginal people has had both economic and social effects. There has been the economic effect of their being denied wages. There has been the social effect that accompanied the increase in unemployment amongst Aboriginal communities. One has to look at the nature of a number of Aboriginal communities in outback areas and wonder about their long term economic viability. In this respect, therefore, a number of Aboriginal communities are looking forward to the commencement of mining activities as a way of providing the revenue by which they can remain economically viable.

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

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-I take the opportunity during the discussion of the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to raise the question of land rights in Western Australia. We have in Western Australia the possibility of there developing a Queenslandtype situation in relation to the legitimate claims of the Aboriginal people for land rights. We must ensure above all else that the Aboriginal people of Western Australia and Aboriginal people everywhere are not ensnared by this Government in a battleground of legal complexity and political rivalries. The Aboriginal people throughout Australia have made perfectly clear their demand for land rights. That is their first demand. That is the demand which they give the highest priority. Whilst I suspect that there is a possibility of the development in Western Australia of the sort of brawl that has developed in Queensland, I suspect also that even though the Premier of Western Australia shares the ideological absurdities of the Premier of Queensland he probably has slightly more political finesse. Whilst he will probably end up achieving exactly the same result as has been achieved in Queensland, he will probably ensure at the same time that the publicity and the open political conflict do not develop in Western Australia. This is particularly perplexing for us and something that we have to scrutinise all the more diligently, because we know at least that the Premier of Queensland is opposed- he is prepared to take his opposition to extraordinary extremes- to the granting of any sort of real, permanent land rights to the Aborigines of that State. We know also that the Premier of Western Australia is of a like mind.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage)Order! I have previously drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is too much audible conversation in the chamber. Once again I do that.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I think the people who have been most noisy in these circumstances, Mr Chairman, are those who were pretending to have a particular interest in this subject matter. What we must be. particularly aware of is that there is not some sort of shoddy deal perpetrated in Western Australia under which the legitimate claims and the rights of the Aboriginal people of Western Australia are simply shoved under the carpet as a result of some collaboration between the Federal and State governments. I think that the Premier of Western Australia would prefer to do it that way. We must ensure that the Federal Government is not inveigled into that situation. The Premier of Western Australia will always say that a system of land rights does exist in Western Australia but, of course, that is only a subterfuge for the real thing. There is in Western Australia an Aboriginal Lands Trust which theoretically at least has some control over the management of Aboriginal land, but that Lands Trust has only a very tenuous involvement indeed. There is absolutely no security of tenure in terms of the land which is under the control of the Aboriginal Lands Trust.

The members of the Aboriginal Lands Trust are appointed by the Government. They are not elected by the Aboriginal people and the land over which they have control is controlled substantially by the State Government. Whilst the Premier will say that the Lands Trust has greater tenure over the land than does a private citizen over freehold land, inasmuch as before the Government can alter the boundaries of any Aboriginal reserves it has to refer the matter to Parliament, that is a disguise for the real situation. In fact, all the State Government has to do if it wants to abolish a reserve or if it wants to change substantially the boundaries of reserves is to inform the Parliament. There is no requirement for legislation to be passed through the State Parliament. All that has to happen is that the State Parliament has to be informed of the intention of the Government or the Executive Council so to change the boundaries of those reserves.

Mr Martyr:

– Rubbish.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The honourable member for Swan would have absolutely no idea of this subject In fact, he would have even less idea of this subject than he had of a debate which occurred in this chamber not long ago. When the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) was raising the very serious question of bauxite mining on the Darling Range the honourable member for Swan replied that bauxite mining on the Darling Range posed absolutely no threat to Perth’s water supply and posed no threat to the future of the jarrah forests of Western Australia. If that is the extent of the knowledge of the honourable member for Swan, then it would be far better if he kept quiet rather than made absolutely absurd and inane interjections. That seems to be the level of his contribution in this place.

Mr Martyr:

– I am a wake-up to you.

Mr DAWKINS:

– We are a wake-up to you too, my friend. I am unlikely to be able to share your company after the next election. The point is that in Western Australia there is under the control of the Aboriginal Lands Trust some 20 million hectares of land which constitutes more than 7 per cent of the total land area in Western Australia. That seems to be a substantial amount of land when one bears in mind that the Aboriginal population of Western Australia as a whole is approximately 2 per cent of the population of Western Australia. But one has to bear in mind that until recently there has been absolutely no competition from anyone else for that land, and then the interest has been only selective. Only when it is discovered that some value is attaching to that land does anyone else in the community have designs on it. That land has been set aside for Aboriginal purposes and it is my contention that that land ought to be permanently reserved for Aboriginal people and ought to be under the permanent control of Aboriginal people in Western Australia. It is not good enough for the State Government with, I suspect, the collaboration of the Federal Government, to say that there is an Aboriginal Lands Trust which has some limited power in relation to the management of that land. It is not good enough for the State Government to say that that constitutes land rights. It does not constitute land rights. It never has and it never will. It is open to the responsible Minister in any Western Australian government simply to abolish any reserve which happens to get in the way of any mining interests in that State.

We know also that it has been the intention of the State Government to vary the way in which people get access to Aboriginal reserves. We already know that it is the intention of the State Government to remove absolutely any involvement of the Aboriginal people in determining who is allowed to go onto their land- land on which they are living. I know that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) has expressed some concern about this matter. I even know that he has written letters to the State Government expressing his disapproval of the intentions of the State Government in relation to this matter. But I am yet to see any positive action which will result in the State Government’s abandoning that particular course of action. It has even been suggested to me that the new mining Bill which has recently been introduced into the Western Australian Parliament will in fact abolish the necessity for the State Government to proceed in the way in which it intended to proceed under the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act.

Mr Martyr:

– What is wrong with it?

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is wrong with it- to acquaint the honourable member for Swan with the facts- is that it may be possible under the new provisions of the Mining Act for people who have permission under that Act to explore or actually to mine land, to do so even on Aboriginal reserves without reference to the Aboriginal people themselves, without reference to the Lands Trust, without reference even to the Government itself. What I want to ensure is that the Minister in this place makes investigations into the consequences and the provisions of the new mining legislation to ensure that this is not a back door method of achieving the goal which the State Government publicly announced some time ago of removing the possibility of any Aboriginal people getting in the way of the interests of mining companies and the like. It is not enough for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to go to the Central Reserve in Australia and express theoretical support for the people in their land claims. It is about time he turned that theoretical support into some practical support of the legitimate claims of the Aboriginal people of the Central Reserve.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– In entering the debate on the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, I first express surprise and disappointment at the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) who opened the debate for the Opposition. He said that it is time this Government and, in particular, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, recognised the importance of ownership of land for the Aboriginal people and did something positive about promoting Aboriginal acquisition of that land. (Quorum formed). It is only a few weeks ago that in a well publicised trip the Minister toured the Northern Territory and gave the actual titles of thousands of square kilometres of land to the tribal Aborigines who had successfully claimed that it had been their traditional tribal land. Having travelled with the honourable member to many Aboriginal communities in Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland, I find it hard to understand that he had no better knowledge and appreciation of the situation. This is especially true when he talks of paying unemployment benefits to Aborigines, or ‘sit down money ‘ as they call it. If there were ever a more terrible legacy of the Whitlam Government I do not know of it. We can and will overcome the economic chaos into which that Government pulled us, but the legacy of the policy of ‘something for nothing and of letting the Government look after us instead of helping ourselves’, is the most terrifying result of all of its tragic period in office. Unfortunately, while the Labor Party was in power it fostered this feeling among Aborigines and we can see its terrible effects, if only in the alcohol problem and in their health. The present Government’s programs are designed to encourage work rather than the receiving of social service payments.

Another subject brought out by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) was housing and architects. Having travelled through many Aboriginal communities, he must surely realise that we cannot put tribal Aborigines straight into white man’s houses. We went together to the Wiluna settlement where the Aboriginals just want more tents. At another centre they are building one-roomed houses, as they want them. Then we went on to Cundeelee where they do not want to move out of their leantos. We saw the outstations at Yirrkala which they recently built themselves, after moving from white man’s houses. Then at Brewarrina we saw the $45,000 houses, of 8 squares, which had been architect-designed, I was disappointed at the emphasis the honourable member placed on the use of architects in this context, as against getting on with the job and having the people help themselves as much as possible.

Later the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) entered the debate. Again, one must be disappointed to find the Opposition using the Aborigines as pawns in its misguided and unsuccessful anti-uranium campaign. The speech of the honourable member consisted mainly of quotations from Mr Zorn, who had advanced nothing new- nothing which any ordinary, well-paid Australian lawyer could not have brought forward. However, I was glad to hear the honourable member admit that it was the Labor Party that was involved in bringing pressures to bear on the Northern Land Council.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I rise to a point of order. Is it proper during a Committee debate for an honourable member to read a speech?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage)That is not a point of order.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:

-He admitted that the Labor Government was involved in bringing pressure on the Northern Land Council, in its Ranger negotiations, after agreement had been finalised. More shame on them! Then we heard from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), whose tirade warrants no comment.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I draw attention to the state of the Committee.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. I believe there is a Standing Order which prevents quorums being called as frequently as the honourable member for Reid is calling them. I think you should check that out.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I know of no such Standing Order. (Quorum formed).

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:

-Here we have in the Budget $ 17.49m for Department of Aboriginal Affairs programs, which includes $lm for alcohol rehabilitation programs.

Consideration interrupted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. It being 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 1650

ADJOURNMENT

Taxation- Australian Capital Territory Schools Commission: Staff Ceilings- Herbicides- Death of Johnny O’Keefe- New South Wales Election

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The matter that I wish to raise tonight in the adjournment debate is the Government’s proposition to tax accrued long service leave at the ordinary rate of 33 W per cent. Normally I would probably agree -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask honourable members on my right to remain silent. The level of conversation is far too high.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to note again your impartiality in these matters. It is noted by members on your left hand side. The point I make is that normally there would be no argument from me that workers should not accrue large lumps of long service leave, shall we say, but I draw the attention of the House -

Mr Bourchier:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it correct for the honourable member to be discussing an item which is already part of the Budget discussions and also the subject of a Bill on the Notice Paper?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is capable of applying the Standing Orders. There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is par for the course for the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier). He does not like honourable members on this side of the House to be critical of the Government. For some reason he thinks that Government members stand in some sort of inviolable position. I draw the attention of the honourable member for Bendigo and of other honourable members on that side of the House to the fact that the matter I raise tonight should be of some concern to all Government members. In his electorate in the State of Victoria the honourable member for Bendigo has a very large number of railway workers. If the man has any political sense at all, he will listen to what I have to say. Because there has been a Liberal Government in Victoria since 1955 railway workers in that State are being done in the eye, to use a colloquialism, by this Government’s legislation to tax their accrued long service leave.

Mr Bourchier:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Oh, not again. You can rub him out under Standing Order No. 67.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Burke will resume his seat. The honourable member for Bendigo has raised a point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– On a point of order, the honourable member for Burke made a comment about the year 1955 and the Liberal State Government’s railways legislation. Actually it is the Labor Government before that to which he is referring. He is just trying to cover up for it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will resume his seat and I caution him against raising specious points of order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I have now taken count and that is the 67th time that the honourable member for Bendigo has raised a point of order and he has not had a victory yet. I do not know for how long the Chair is going to tolerate that sort of interference in an honourable member’s speech. The matter I am raising tonight is obviously jocular to members of the Government but it is of great importance to every railway worker in Australia. Because railways throughout Australia traditionally have not been great profit making institutions a direction has been given by every State, including the State of Victoria with its Liberal Government since 1955, to employees of the State railways not to take their long service leave and their annual leave when it becomes due. In the interests of the State and of the service in which they are engaged these people have not taken their long service leave. They believed they were doing the right thing. They are now being attacked by this Government which cannot be trusted by anybody in Australia. It is now going to tax those people not at five per cent -

Mr Hodgman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I, perhaps more than the honourable member, have good reason to know that the point of order I am raising is valid because the matter has been dealt with already. I refer to Standing Order 7 1 . This matter was dealt with by way of a vote earlier tonight and I have particular reason for recalling it. The Standing Order states:

No member may allude to any debate or proceedings of the same session unless such allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion.

With respect, I submit that he cannot redebate a matter that has been voted on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Standing Order, understandably, is quite precise. I have accepted that what the honourable member for Burke has to say is relevant and does not contravene that Standing Order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-As I was saying -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

– I rise tonight to bring to the attention of this House an industrial dispute which is disrupting the Australian Capital Territory schools system. Today the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation commenced a campaign of rolling strikes designed to put pressure on the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) to increase the number of teachers to be made available to the Australia Capital Territory government schools system. This tactic has been backed by an extensive and expensive media advertising campaign using Press, radio and television -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you ask the honourable member for Canberra to read his speech slowly so that I can hear what he is saying and understand it?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr HASLEM:

– There has been orchestrated public meetings, meetings of school parents and citizens associations and meetings of teachers.

Mr Young:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Does the honourable member for Canberra have unlimited time?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the Clerk to adjust the clocks.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Canberra has been speaking for a minute and a half, not a minute.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I must also caution the honourable member for Chifley against raising specious points of order.

Mr HASLEM:

– Pre-prepared motions were passed at all these meetings, and I compliment those responsible for arranging the compaign on its professional delivery. It had all the trappings of a campaign organised by trained political activists and I am sure that it will serve as valuable experience for a similar campaign which, I understand, is to be run just before the Federal election to be held in 1980 but with a different purpose in view.

Having said that, I must ask whether the whole exercise has been honest in its thrust or necessary, in the light of the dislocation of schools, children, teachers and parents it has caused. The major thrust of the campaign has been dishonest, so dishonest that if any teacher of consumer protection at a school saw such a campaign using such material mounted by a private firm or business house he would be outraged and undoubtedly would use it as a good example to his students of the excesses of the capitalist system. An advertisement in the Canberra Times today stated:

We are not prepared to accept the decision of the Minister for Education to enfore staff cuts . . .

It also stated: . . threatens the future education of every child attending a Government School.

If these claims could be substantiated, I certainly would join the teachers myself. However, they are such overstatements of* the facts that they cannot be described as anything but dishonest. They are so dishonest that I must question the suitability of the people who are drafting the advertisements to teach our students. How can anyone claim that there have been cuts in staffing of our schools when, demonstrably, 40 extra teachers are being provided next year? We have 2,732 teachers this year and will be getting up to 2,772 teachers next year. How can it be claimed that that situation will ‘threaten the future education of every child attending a government school ‘ when on the figures accepted by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority there are only 13 fewer teachers than it wanted, in a system employing 2,772 teachers?

Other savings result from the fact that many new teachers asked for are simply not required. No starting teachers will be appointed in 1979. In addition, six teachers from a new high school, which informed educational opinion states is not viable, will be saved. Two positions have been saved within the schools office itself. The fact that these positions are not required will make no difference at all to face-to-face teaching in the schools. The whole issue boils down to an argument about 13 extra teachers in a system which provides for 2,772 teachers. How myopic can people be? How alarming it is to see this attitude in those charged with the responsibility of teaching our children and instilling in them the characteristics of truthfulness, objectivity and clear thinking.

I would like to point out to honourable members that the Schools Commission report of 1978 states:

The Commission believes that in the interests of maintaining proper balance in resource allocation there should be no increase in real per student expenditures on secondary education in the Australian Capital Territory in the immediate future. This is particularly true while resources levels in the Territory are so clearly superior to other States . . .

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

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-On 28 September last I asked the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) a question without notice regarding 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T herbicides and a report to the Victorian Parliament criticising the lack of a research facility for examining such substances in Victoria. The Minister, in his answer, virtually replied that it was a State responsibility, and he washed his hands of it. In any case, he replied that the National Health and Medical Research Council had examined the matter on several occasions and had found no proof of a relationship with congenital abnormalities. He did say in his reply that this was a matter that must be left to research scientists, both in this country and overseas. But he failed to indicate what Government action was being taken to encourage any Australian research facility to look into this matter.

In yesterday’s Australian, a member of one of the Minister’s own Federal committees made a statement on this matter. I speak of Professor Geoffrey Bentley, who is a member of the Federal Congenital Abnormalities Committee and he, in referring to those herbicides, said that his Committee had requested a full inquiry into the matter, through their parent committee, the Drug Evaluation Committee. He pointed out that 2,4,5-T in particular when burnt produced dioxin, a substance known to cause congenital abnormalities. He suggested that people in country areas should be particularly interested because the spray could drift onto house roofs where, through sunshine, et cetera, it could be subjected to heat and could be washed into the tank water that was used by those people. It was evident from the concern expressed in various quarters that there was a possibility that congenital abnormalities were occurring. I was shocked to read at the end of that report in the Press the following:

A spokesman for Mr Hunt said yesterday there were no plans for a new inquiry into 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D.

So much for the Minister’s reliance on his own Federal committees. Even if he does not take the attitude that the Opposition takes to these substances and the possibility of their causing congenital abnormalities with consequent human suffering, I would have thought that this Government which talks so much about cost containment would have had some responsibility on the national scale if it were to look at the problems that arise, the cost of the health services, the cost of the prostheses that have to be provided to the people involved, and the cost of their rehabilitation and so on.

This matter is associated with another matter I wish to raise, and that is the question of the storage of toxic waste. I raised the matter following an American report. Following my mention of it I found a number of university people were in an embarrassing situation because of the problem they had with organic solvent wastes- toxic substances- whereby they had nowhere to dispose of these toxic wastes. They believed industry was very much in the same position. At the moment the Victorian Government is setting up a site in the Darghile Forest near Heathcote and there is the possibility that Bendigo ‘s water supply might be contaminated by it. I would have thought that the Government Whip would have been interested in that aspect. This Federal

Government both at the Department of Health and the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development levels cannot wipe its hands of these matters. It is about time it faced up to its responsibilities and did not excuse itself by passing the buck to the States.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish to speak for a few moments about a person who was not a leader of a nation, not a spiritual leader, but an entertainer extraordinaire. I refer to a person who was buried today in Sydney. I do not intend indulging in a form of words which refers to a personal association with this person whom I was privileged to know. But those who watch the news or who will read tonight’s or tomorrow’s newspapers will learn that the Catholic Church at Waverley was packed out and hundreds of mourners spilled into the street during the funeral service for the late John Michael O ‘Keefe. During the panegyric a Christian Brother who taught John O ‘Keefe at school and who became his lifelong friend asked those assembled to ponder upon ‘just what did he do for you?’ The Christian Brother was referring to the man’s generosity to his fellow man.

He was not by any stretch a wealthy man but he willingly gave to those in need even if such giving added a burden to his own shoulders. Besides supporting charities and the poor he gave himself to the cause of promoting his belief that when it came to entertainment we Australians can provide it without relying on importations or without total reliance on aping. There are honourable members on both sides of this chamber who have been Ministers with a portfolio associated with the media who can testify to the fact that at some stage they were visited by this entertainer who was attempting to promote the availability of our own material and to ensure that Australians were given a fair chance to receive the exposure which is necessary to build up acclaim and support. Undoubtedly he will be remembered by different people for different things. But without doubt he dedicated his life to the promotion of the Australian product.

I make the concluding observation that the number of Australians who have been saddened by his death and the number of Australians who turned out for his funeral in Sydney today indicate that an Australian has the capacity in any field to make a hit within his own country. The people who have dipped their lids to this man show that he made the grade and proved that that in which he believed was truly possible. We all have something to contribute to this world. We all contribute in a different way. Some of us are noticed more than others. Some of us have a more lasting impact.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You had a good impact on Withers.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Some of us change the course of history, as my friend the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) so helpfully did. An entertainer in his own right makes his own contribution. That this Australian was able to make such an impact in an area which was previously regarded as the sole forte of overseas entertainers is a great tribute to his own peronsal tenacity and his ability to sell something which was originally made in Australia.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I was rather surprised this evening because I would have thought that a few people on the Government side of the House would have had a few short speeches to make about the New South Wales elections, but surprisingly they have been very quiet.

Mr Carlton:

– You were not in Gosford on Saturday.

Mr COHEN:

– That is a very interesting interjection from a man who would not be a member of this place if we achieved in a Federal election the same result as was recorded in the New South Wales elections. For the first time in history there are now two State Labor members of parliament in the division of Mackellar.

Mr Carlton:

– I have not got two -

Mr COHEN:

-You have got Manly -

Mr Carlton:

– Not in my electorate.

Mr COHEN:

-Well, it is in the same area. The votes for Pittwater have not been all counted yet, so there may be a Labor member in that seat too. This was a fascinating election because never before in the history of Australian politics has any political party been annihilated the way that the Liberal Party was annihilated in New South Wales. Never in history. Sixty per cent of the vote was obtained by one political party. Such a feat has never been recorded before in Australia’s history.

Mr Neil:

– Askin once got 63 per cent.

Mr COHEN:

– Askin never got anything remotely like 63 per cent. If the honourable member can produce an election result which shows that Askin got 63 per cent I will dance naked through Parliament House. If the results in New South Wales on Saturday were recorded in a Federal election there would have been an annihilation on the other side of the House. The seat of Mackellar would have fallen. There is no question about that. The seats of Lowe, Phillip, St George, Barton, Cook, Macarthur and Macquarie would have fallen, and even the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) would have been hanging on by his proverbial fingernails. The most incredible thing is to look at where Labor’s victories were. Labor now holds five seats on the north side of the harbourthe seats of Manly, Wakehurst, Willoughby, Fuller and Yaralla. Who would have believed it? Only with a Liberal Opposition going so bad and getting so much help from its friends here in Canberra could such a result have been achieved.

We heard the absurd excuses being put forward today by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He said that it is all the fault of the brilliant Mr Wran. Well, no one would want to take anything away from Neville Wran. It was a magnificent performance. But, my word, we can thank Mr Fraser for his help. The same thing that happened in the Werriwa by-election has happened in the New South Wales elections. The people are fed up to the back teeth with the Liberals and if they continue to believe the nonsense that the Prime Minister put over this morning they will be riding for a very big fall. The same thing will happen again in a couple of weeks in Ballarat and it will keep on happening until the Liberals wake up to themselves. They know it as well as we on this side do. The result in New South Wales was not just a vote for Neville Wran, although that was a major factor. Look at the result of the elections. Who would have thought that the seat of Vaucluse would have been in doubt? The result has not yet been decided. It will be decided on preferences. Who would have thought that in New South Wales the Liberal Party would hold two seats on the south side of the harbour? It has won only a handful of seats. About only five seats in Sydney now could be called safe Liberal seats. Even seats like Eastwood and Northcott, which are in the heart of Tory land, have been retained for the Liberals by only 3,000 or 4,000 votes. Labor used to struggle to find a candidate to stand for these seats.

Mr Ruddock:

– You had to get their wives to stand.

Mr COHEN:

– Exactly, and they were brilliant. They are not only beautiful but also brilliant. What a fine bunch. They nearly won seats that we would never have hoped to win in a million years. The word ‘Liberal’ is now on the nose right throughout this nation and it starts right here in this Parliament. Unless honourable members opposite wake up to themselves none of them will be here after the next election for this place, which almost happened in New South Wales.

Mr Baillieu:

– Address the Chair.

Mr COHEN:

– I will address the Chair because Mr Deputy Speaker is about the only intelligent person remaining on the other side of the House. Not only do you have a benign smile and do a good job but you also have at least a few brains, which is more than you can say for some members on the other side of the House.

I want to pay my tribute to Neville Wran. It was a magnificent victory, but he of course was one of the first to acknowledge that he was helped by the Prime Minister and by the LiberalCountry Party Government and its policies. Of course the results in New South Wales are only a follow-on from what happened in the Werriwa by-election,, following which the brilliant young member, Mr Kerin, was returned to this House, although representing a different electorate from that which he had previously represented. I conclude by saying that the election result is a warning to this Government to shape up. If it does not it will be shipped out. Unless it starts to solve the problems of” unemployment and looks at the problems of small business and stagnation in this country it will go the same way as the State Liberal Party went on Saturday.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-Until the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) spoke I had no idea that he had made such a substantial contribution to the recent New South Wales election. It has been said that there is nothing quite like the voice of experience. I simply make the point that the honourable member for Robertson has a short memory. When he talks about the greatest annihilation of any political party in Australian history, he seems to forget December 1975 and seems to forget what happened in Queensland in 1974. At that election a political party was actually struggling to field a cricket team. Whatever he might say, the Liberal Party and the Country Party in New South Wales have enough members for at least two cricket teams.

Mr Ruddock:

– Three.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Indeed, as my honourable colleague reminds me, it is more like three. Let me say as one who campaigned in one seat which I believe we have held- I refer to the seat of Bligh- that this is the second New South Wales election that I can bring to mind that has been won on false pretences. The election in 1976 was won on the false pretence that, if the Liberal

Party was returned to Government, double taxation would be introduced. That was a shameful shabby political deceit, a confidence trick of proportions unequalled by any other event since Federation.

What did we have this time? We did not have any Party standing for election; we had Mr Wran and his Government. One could not find the word ‘Labor’ on any advertisement, on any bill poster or in any television or radio commercial. Labor was in New South Wales, as it is throughout the rest of Australia at present, a dirty word. Neville Wran must take the prize for winning an election. In fact I think he will go down in history as the only Labor leader who won an election by pretending to be a Liberal.

The people of New South Wales- I have no right to say this but I will- are in for a very big shock. I wonder what will happen when the redistribution comes along next year. It may well be that the people unwittingly have been conned by this smooth, suave-talking armchair socialist, this man who puts himself forward as one of them when in fact not only is he not one of them but also is, as my colleague the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) has said repeatedly, a prisoner of the Left. He has been reelected as Premier. How will the people feel when Frank Walker steps from the side and takes over? That will happen. How will they feel when the boundaries are redrawn so that Labor stays in power through the greatest gerrymander that this country has seen.

I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are from Queensland, that I get sick and tired of people grizzling to me about the alleged gerrymander there. Do you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that for the Liberals in South Australia to gain government- for the anti-socialists to win- they have to get 54.5 per cent of the vote. I make the prediction that when Mr Wran and his colleagues, the people who run the Party from inside, the left wingers whom my colleagues the honourable member for St George, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) repeatedly are pointing out to the people of Australia, pass their gerrymander 60 per cent of the vote will be needed to get Wran out of office. That is exactly what will happen. I ask a rhetorical question of the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) who is at the table. Can the Federal Government do anything to protect the people of New South Wales and -

Mr Macphee:

– To prevent the ‘Niftymander’.

Mr HODGMAN:

-To prevent the ‘Nifty Nev- mander’ which is going on. We have to do something to ensure that the gerrymander is not passed. Otherwise by corruption and by the rigging of boundaries, the people of New South Wales might unwittingly find themselves subjected to a socialist government for a quarter of a century. Can we in this Parliament do anything as a matter of urgency to head off what I predict will be the greatest gerrymander and rigging that the people of New South Wales are not prepared to accept? If this Parliament does not act I believe that Mr Wran will be in control to the end of the century by virtue of a rigged gerrymander.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1656

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Television: Community Antenna Systems and Translator Facilities (Question No. 807)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) What licences have been issued under provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act to facilitate operation of community antenna television systems.
  2. Which of the issued licences apply to areas outside capital cities.
  3. What licence applications for community antenna television systems have been rejected and what were the grounds for rejection in each case.
  4. Where have television translator station facilities been provided to improve or facilitate reception of the national television service.
  5. What priorities have been determined to provide translator facilities for the national television service and at what estimated cost will each translator be established.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Community television aerial systems have been authorised in the following areas:

Metropolitan

Bayview, New South Wales; Beaumont, Glen Osmond, St Georges and Urrbrae areas South Australia; Balmoral, New South Wales; Castlecrag, New South Wales; Athelstone, South Australia; Wattle Park, Stonyfell and Rosslyn Park area, South Australia; Parliament House, New South Wales.

Non-Metropolitan

Wivenhoe, Victoria; Harrow, Victoria; Leeman, Western Australia.

It should be noted that prior to 1 January 1978 the authority was in the form of a permit, but legislation now provides that a licence rather than a permit is required.

The community television aerial system at Wivenhoe is no longer in operation.

  1. Interest in the establishment of community television aerial systems has been expressed, but permits or licences not granted, in the following areas. It should be noted that a firm application for a permit or licence has not been received in all cases.

New South Wales- Sydney (City and Suburbs), Bowral, Gosford area, Campbelltown.

Victoria- Mount Macedon, Hopetoun, Warburton, Omeo-Swifts Creek, Woods Point, Ringwood, Robertson, Cardigan Village.

Queensland- Mount Gravatt, The Gap, Mitchelton, Somerset Dam, Boonah, Nambour.

South Australia-Stonyfell (Extension of Existing System), West Lakes.

Commonwealth Territories-Norfolk Island, Garran, ACT.

There are various grounds why these have not been proceeded with, e.g.:

  1. Application deferred by the former Australian Broadcasting Control Board pending finalisation in 1974, and subsequent Government consideration of the joint study undertaken by the Board and the former Postmaster-General’s Department into the future development of cable television services generally.
  2. Adequate television service already in existence.
  3. Possibility of a more suitable alternative means of providing an adequate television service being developed.

  4. Lack of a firm application for a permit or licence.

    1. Television translator stations have been established in many areas to improve or facilitate reception of the national television service. For a detailed list of these areas as at 30 June 1977, I draw the honourable member’s attention to Appendix H of the recently tabled 1976-77 Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
    2. A three-year planning and construction program, incorporating a major part of the remote area television program announced by the Government towards the end of last year is currently being considered by the Government. I am hopeful that an approved program will be available in the near future. The cost of providing a translator varies widely depending on the location of the area in relation to existing services.

Community Television Antenna Systems (Question No. 857)

Mr Simon:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. How many community television antenna systems (CTAS) have been installed throughout Australia.
  2. In what localities and on what dates were the systems introduced.
  3. Of the systems established, which of them have been disbanded or otherwise taken over by any Government department from the community committee which initiated the system.
  4. Of those systems in Victoria, at what cost were they installed and what is the annual maintenance fee to each of the members/recipients of the television system.
  5. Was a CTAS established in the Electoral Division of Braddon in 1964; if so, has it proved satisfactory in supplying an adequate television service to the Wivenhoe community.
  6. Is he able to say whether there are similar systems operating in the United States of America; if so, is he also able to say whether the Federal or any State Government in any way subsidise CTAS in that country, and to what extent.
  7. When is it anticipated that the 3-year planning and construction program to extend the national television service will be completed, submitted and made public.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Ten community television aerial systems have been installed throughout Australia.
  2. –

It should be noted that prior to 1 January 1978 a permit was required to operate a community television aerial system. However, legislation now provides that a licence rather than permit is required.

  1. The permit for the community television aerial system at Wivenhoe, Tasmania has been relinquished. In addition, the operator of the systems serving the Beaumont/Glen Osmond/St Georges /Urrbrae area and the Wattle Park/Stonyfell/Rosslyn Park area of South Australia has expressed its desire not to continue its operations. However, it has agreed to do so pending the establishment of translator stations to serve the areas concerned. No systems have been taken over by any Government department.
  2. There is only one community television aerial system operating in Victoria, viz, Harrow. Initially, there were 17 subscribers who each contributed $30 for installation costs and $14 for annual maintenance costs. There are 13 subscribers at the present time. The current annual maintenance cost is unknown.
  3. A community television aerial system was established at Wivenhoe in the Electoral Division of Braddon. Although the system provided a satisfactory service for the Wivenhoe community, the permit for the system has been relinquished following the establishment of translator stations to serve the area.
  4. Yes; I am unaware of any Federal or State Government subsidy of community television aerial systems in that country.
  5. The production of the three-year planning and construction program to extend the national broadcasting and television service has been completed by my Department and is currently being considered by the Government. I am unable to indicate at this stage when the program will be made public.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment: Airborne Waste (Question No. 928)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 13 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the composition of airborne waste from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s Research Establishment at Lucas Heights, NSW.
  2. 1 ) What gaseous radio isotopes remain after filtration.
  3. What methods are used to filter tritium from gaseous emissions.
  4. How many curies are emitted into the atmosphere daily.
  5. What was the composition and amount of gaseous waste discharged into the atmosphere in the year 1977 and what was its total radioactivity.
  6. 6 ) Is airborne waste taken into account in the AAEC ‘s estimates of radiation doses to members of the staff and to the local population.
Mr Newman:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1.) The composition of the airborne effluent discharged from the AAEC Research Establishment varies, depending upon the work which is being carried out. Typically it includes sulphur oxides and paniculate matter from incineration and certain airborne radio isotopes from research and radio-pharmaceutical production facilities.

  1. The airborne radio isotopes iodine 131, tritium, argon 4 1 , and noble fission product gases are regularly detected.
  2. None. Tritium is one of the least radiotoxic isotopes and the measured discharge level is less than 1 per cent of the authorised discharge limit.
  3. The average daily discharges in 1 977 were:

Tritium- 0.2 curies; Argon 41-5.6 curies; Other noble gases- 30 curies; Iodine 131 - 001 curies.

  1. The composition and amount of airborne waste discharged in 1 977 was:

Tritium- 73 curies; Argon 41-2,060 curies; Other noble gases- 1 1,000 curies; Iodine 131-0.4 curies; Iodine 133-0.8 curies.

Note: Iodine 133 was a twice only release and is therefore not shown in (4) in the average daily discharges.

  1. Yes.

VIP Aircraft (Question No. 1167)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. 1 ) What are the financial arrangements necessary for the proposed purchase and modification of two Boeing 727-100 aircraft for No. 34 Squadron.
  2. Did he state that the funds for the purchase of these aircraft will not be provided from Defence appropriations; if so, will ownership of the aircraft be vested in the RAAF.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) To date, suitable aircraft have not become available for purchase by the Government and no financial arrangements have been entered into with any companies for the acquisition and modification of Boeing 727-100 aircraft.
  2. The funds for any expenditure necessary by Defence relating to the purchase of the two Boeing aircraft will be provided as an addition to appropriations in support of the Defence function.

A separate appropriation item will be provided in the Defence Estimates for the acquisition of the aircraft including fitting out costs, support equipment and initial spares.

As with all aircraft of 34 Squadron, the two Boeing aircraft, if acquired, will remain the property of the Commonwealth and under the control of the Royal Australian Air Force.

Touchfones (Question No. 1183)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 May 1978:

  1. ) What is the reason for his failure and that of his predecessor to answer question No.12 which first appeared on the Notice Paper of 9 March 1977 in the previous Parliament.
  2. As the information sought in that question is of a factual nature, is the delay due to a wish to withhold information from the public in order to avoid questions about the validity of additional charges made for the now widely advertised Touchfones.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2)I have provided the honourable member with a reply to Question on Notice No. 12, (See House of Representatives Hansard of 15 August 1978 at page 288).

Maternity Leave (Question No. 1283)

Mr Shipton:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. What has been the cost of maternity leave in his Department during the years (a) 1976 (b) 1977, and (c) in the period January1978 to date.
  2. What was the total hours of leave in respect of these employees.
  3. How many employees have resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in each of the periods.
  4. What sum was paid for maternity leave for the (a) first (b) second, and (c) third child in each of the periods.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. ) Cost of maternity leave in the Post and Telecommunications Department in 1976- $19,131; 1977- $1 1,807; 1978-$364(till31May).
  2. Total hours of leave in respect of these employees in 1976- 4,508 hours; 1977-3,555 hours; 1978-110 hours (till 31 May).
  3. Number of employees who resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in 1976- nil; 1977- nil; 1978- nil (till 31 May).
  4. Sum paid for maternity leave for the first child in 1976- $19,131; 1977-$11,807; 1978- $364 (till 31 May). No officers have been on maternity leave more than once in the period concerned.

Maternity leave (Question No. 1288)

Mr Shipton:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May1978:

  1. What has been the cost of maternity leave in his Department during the years (a) 1976 and (b) 1977, and (c) in the period January1978 to date.
  2. What was the total hours of leave in respect of these employees.
  3. How many employees have resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in each of the periods.
  4. What sum was paid for maternity leave for the (a) first, (b) second and (c) third child in each of the periods.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. ) (a) $885,339; (b) $ 1,063,883; (c) $466,031 .
  2. 970,190 hours.
  3. In 1976-235; 1977-208; 1978-102.

(4)-

Defence-related Facilities: Foreign Involvement (Question No. 1253)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May1978:

  1. What defence-related facilities (a) operated by a foreign power and (b) jointly operated by Australia and a foreign power existed in Australia as at (i) 1 July 1968, (ii) 1 July 1970, (iii) 1 July 1972, (iv) 1 July 1974, (v) 1 July 1976 and(vi)1 May 1978.
  2. What is the foreign power and designated operating agency in each case.
  3. Have any alterations of operating agency taken place; if so, (a) when, (b) in respect of which facilities and (c) by what authority.
  4. Under what agreement or other authority does each facility operate in Australia.
  5. ) When did each agreement or other authority enter into force and when does each expire.
  6. What is (a) the function and (b) the location of each facility.
  7. How many (a) Australian and (b) foreign personnel were employed at each facility as at (i) 1 July 1968, (ii) 1 July1970, (iii) 1 July1972, (iv) 1 July1974, (v) 1 July1976 and(vi)1 May 1978.
  8. To how many personnel at each facility did a Status of Forces Agreement apply as at 1 May1978.
  9. What was the capital cost to (a) Australia and (b) the foreign power involved in siting and building each facility.
  10. What has been the annual operating cost in constant dollars to (a) Australia and (b) the foreign power involved for each facility since its establishment.
  11. What firms undertook construction and provision of major equipment for each faculty.
  12. Does Australia operate either solely or jointly any defence-related facilities in foreign countries; if so, (a) where, (b) for how long has each facility operated, (c) what is the purpose of each facility and (d) under what authority or agreement does each facility operate.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

The facilities described in this answer are those which, whether or not precisely required by the language of the question, are considered to be properly included having regard to their direct relationship with Australian Defence concerns and with foreign involvement at one dme or another in the period covered by the question.

For the sake of completeness I record that a receiving station operated at Norfolk Island from January 1969 to April 1970. This station was established under an Exchange of Notes between the Australian and United States Governments dated 13 January 1969, and the agreement, which remained in force for six months, was extended on 10 July 1969 for a further six months. The purpose of the station was study of ionospheric propagation in relation to long range radio paths, and the US Air Force was the designated US cooperating agency for the duration of the project with the Australian Department of Supply.

For the same reason I record as well that for many years Australia has participated with the US and UK in the operation of a number of portable geodetic satellite observation posts. The posts have generally each operated for a period of a few months up to two years. Agencies involved include the British and US Armies, US Coast and Geodetic Survey, and US Defence Mapping Agency. Activities jointly undertaken with the US are covered by the Memorandum of Mapping, Charting and Geodesy Arrangements of 29 August 1973 which designates the United States Department of Defence and the Australian Depanment of Defence as respective cooperating agencies. This memorandum, which remains in operation until one year after either of the co-operating agencies shall have notified the other of its intention to terminate the arrangements, replaced separate individual service arrangements of May /October 1960, March 1963 and

CO-

May 1965. Co-operation with the UK did not take place under a specific exchange.

The function of these posts has been geodesy and mapping. They have been located, at different times, at Cocos Island, Perth, Culgoora (NSW), Thursday Island, Manus Island (when under Australian sovereignty), Darwin, Carnarvon, Townsville, and Caversham (WA). They are presently operating at Perth and Townsville.

The numbers of personnel involved in these posts have been small- usually of die order of one or two Australians and two to six US or UK personnel. The US personnel concerned would be covered by the Status of Forces Agreement. Total operating cost of the facilities to Australia since 1966 is approximately $52,000.

Having mentioned the foregoing in order to ensure that nothing which might be seen to fall within the ambit of the honourable member’s question has been omitted, I turn to those things which more clearly fall under the heading of facility’.

Where in this answer information is not readily available this is indicated by the designation ‘NRA’. Where data are classified no answer is given.

Cost data sought in question 10 are provided, where available, in current dollars. Annual operating costs for the facilities are not recorded in constant dollar terms. No answers have been provided to question 10 (b) because the annual operating costs to foreign governments of the facilities with which they are involved in Australia are not provided to the Australian Government.

(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)-

  1. Joint Project, Woomera- The Joint UK/Australia Long Range Weapons Project (the Joint Project) was established in 1947 under the terms of a Memorandum of Arrangements (MOA) between the two Governments. Under the MOA, a redundant munitions factory at Salisbury (SA) was utilised as headquarters and laboratory support facilities of the Long Range Weapons Establishment. A testing range was established at what is now known as Woomera with launching, tracking and support facilities, airfields and a village. The Australian Department of Defence and the UK Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive) are the designated co-operating agencies. Several changes in designation of the UK cooperating agency over the last thirty years have been occasioned by organisational restructuring in the UK. (In this way, for example, UK co-operating agency responsibility passed on 1 May1971 from the Ministry of Aviation Supply to the Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive).)

The Joint Project presently operates under a Memorandum of Arrangements (MOA) between the United Kingdom and Australia concerning the continued use of Joint Project Facilities. The MOA extends from 1 July 1976 to 30 June1980. A prior Memoranda of Arrangements operated from 1 July1 968 to 30 June1 976.

The function of the Joint Project is the provision, maintenance and operation of facilities:

  1. for the conduct and support of an agreed program of trials and other projects, either defence or civil;
  2. for the final assembly and preparation of rockets and other equipment for test there; and
  3. for the provision of trials data.

Its location is Salisbury and Woomera, South Australia.

  1. Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station- The station was established in 1954 by agreement with the United States. Co-operating agencies were the USAF and the Australian Department of Supply (later Department of Defence following the re-organisation of the Defence Group of Departments in early 1974). The station was brought under Australia/US joint management following an Exchange of Notes in February1978. The Department of Science then replaced the Department of Defence as Australian Co-operating Agency.

The station now operates under the Exchange of Notes dated 28 February1978. The Agreement entered into force on 2 March1978 and continues in force until180 days after either Government has given the other notice in writing of its desire to terminate the Agreement.

The purpose of the station is to monitor seismic disturbances in the earth’s surface in such a way as to aid in distinguishing nuclear explosions from natural phenomena such as earthquakes. The station is located at Alice Springs.

  1. TRANET Station112- TRANET Station112 was established under an Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States of America constituting an agreement for co-operation in a Transit navigational satellite program, effective from 5 June1961. The designated co-operating agencies were the former Department of Supply and the US Department of Defence. The station has from the outset been operated solely by Australia, with equipment supplied by the US.

The station ceased to be of interest to the US Navy for Transit navigation system purposes in1971. However, its capabilities remained relevant to the tracking of other US satellites and it was decided that the Australian Government would continue to operate the station.

The installation is located at Smithfield, South Australia. It is a passive receiver of radio signals from satellites which emit on its wave-length. It does not send signals to satellites. The signals if receives relate exclusively to the satellites’ locations in orbits. It has functioned in this way for17 years.

  1. North West Cape Naval Communication StationThe station was established, maintained and operated by the United States Government under the terms of an agreement between Australia and the US on 9 June1 963. The agreement provided that the co-operating agencies would be the Australian Department of Defence and the US Department of the Navy.

Under an exhange of notes dated1 2 July1 968, the Australian co-operating agency became the Department of the Navy. A further exhange of notes of 21 March 1974 provided for the facility to be operated by the armed forces of the two Governments as a joint facility. This was confirmed by a further exchange of notes on15 January 1975 and enacted in the United States Naval Communication Station Agreement Act No. 102 of1975 which was assented to on 10 September 1975.

The station presently operates under the 1963 agreement between Australia and the United States of America relating to the establishment of a United States naval communication station in Australia, as amended by the

Exchanges of Notes detailed above and as enacted in the United States Naval Communication Station Agreement Act No. 102 of 197 5. The original agreement entered into force on 28 June 1963 and remains in force, as amended, for at least twenty-five years and thereafter until the expiration of 1 80 days from the date on which one Government gives to the other Government notice in writing that it desires to terminate the Agreement.

The function of the station is defence communication: in particular, communications for the submarines and surface vessels ofthe USN and RAN. The station is located at North West Cape, Western Australia.

  1. Partial Nuclear Test Ban Monitoring StationsPearce and Amberley- The Pearce Station was established under an Exchange of Notes with the US in January 1 964. Responsibility for operation of the station was transferred in 1966 from the USAF to the United Kingdom. This arrangement was formalised under an Exchange of Notes with the United Kingdom in October 1972. Designated co-operating agencies were the Department of Air and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Commission. The Amberley Station was established in mid- 1965 following an Exchange of Notes with the US in April 1 965. Designated co-operating agencies were the Department of Air and the United States Air Force, which operated the station until its closure in July 1975.

As their names indicate, the Pearce and Amberley stations monitored compliance with the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Operations ceased at Pearce on 3 1 July 1975 and at Amberley on 15 July 1974.

  1. Joint Tropical Trials and Research EstablishmentThe Joint Tropical Trials and Research Establishment (JTTRE) was formed in October 1977 by the amalgamation of the Tropical Trials Establishment, formerly an Army unit then part of the Department of Defence, with the Joint Tropical Research Unit (JTRU), which had been a joint Australia/UK facility since 1964.

The joint program of work at JTTRE is carried out under the JTTRE Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 1977. It expires 30 June 1980.

(7)-

The former JTRU was operated under successive agreements dated 6 February 1 964 and 24 December 1 970. The latter agreement expired when the current MOU entered into force. Following an organisational restructuring in 1970, UK co-operating agency responsibility passed from the Ministry of Technology to the Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive).

JTTRE carries out testing of materials by exposure to tropical (Hot/Wet and Hot/Dry) conditions. Its facilities are located in Innisfail, Clump Point and Cloncurry,’ Queensland.

  1. Joint Defence Space Research Facility- The facility commenced operation during 1970, with the Australian Department of Defence and the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) ofthe US Department of Defense as the designated co-operating agencies. Under the Exchange of Notes extending the agreement in October 1977, the US Co-operating Agency was designated as the US Department of Defense.

The facility operates under the agreement dated 9 December 1966 between Australia and the United States of America relating to the establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility. This agreement was extended by an Exchange of Notes dated 19 October 1977 for a further period of ten years and thereafter until terminated.

The function of the facility is defence space research, lt is located at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs.

  1. Joint Defence Space Communications Station- The station commenced operations in early 1971 with the USAF and Australian Department of Defence as designated co-operating agencies. There has since been no change in either co-operating agency.

The station operates under the Agreement between Australia and the United States of America relating to the establishment of a Joint Defence Space Communications Station in Australia. It entered into force on 10 November 1969. The Agreement remains in force for a period of ten years and thereafter until terminated.

The function of the station is defence space communications. It is located at Nurrungar, near Woomera.

  1. and (9)-
  1. (a) Joint Project Woomera and JDSCS-These two installations share facilities and services, and their annual operating costs since 1969-70- when construction of JDSCS commenced- have not been separated. Annual operating costs to Australia of the Joint Project are only readily available since 1963-64. Operating costs of the Joint Project between 1963-64 and 1968-69, and the Joint Project and JDSCS combined since1969-70, are estimated to have been:
  1. JGGRS-Prior to 1977-78, operating costs to Australia were nil. In1977-78, operating costs are estimated at $8,000.
  2. TRANET Station 112- Annual operating costs to Australia are only readily available for the period since 1971-72 and are estimated to have been :
  1. North West Cape Naval Communication StationAnnual operating costs to Australia are estimated to have been:
  1. JTTRE- Annual operating costs to Australia are only readily available for the period since 1970-71 and are estimated to have been:
  1. JDSRF- Annual operating costs to Australia are estimated to have been:

  1. PNTBMS Pearce and PNTBMS Amberley- Nil.

    1. (a) Joint Project, Woomera- Much of the major equipment for Joint Project was developed and manufactured by the Weapons Research Establishment (now the Defence Research Centre), Salisbury and Government Aircraft Factories.

Brown and Dureau, Melbourne; Hunting, UK; IBM, Australia; Marconi, UK; BAC, Australia; Hawker Siddely Electronics, UK; RAE/BACA, UK; GE, UK; Elliots, UK; Sperry, UK; Askania, West Germany.

Main contractors involved in provision of basic capital works at Woomera in the period1 968-1 978 have been:

O’Neill and Clayton, U.F. Nitts, J. Mablevicuus, Peak Constructions, Martin Construction Co., J. H. Evins, Glenwood Industries, Consolidated Industries, C. Duregon, T. H. O’Connor, F. R. Mayfield, Martin Building Contractors, C. H. Martin, Nielsen Electric, Morison and Beasley, Hornibrook Hanson and Wilkinson, English Electric, Hanson and Yuncken, A. V. Jennings, Department of Works, Department of Construction- Day Labour Force.

  1. JGGRS- NRA.
  2. TRANET Station 1 12-NRA.
  3. North West Cape Naval Communication StationThe station was constructed in two phases:

Phase I: Hardeman, Monier Hutchison;

Phase II: Coppers-CIough;

Australian sub-contractors: Mayne Nickless, Bell Bros, G. H. Reid Ltd, Poon Bros, B.H.P. Ltd;

US sub-contractors: Datronic Engineers, Keltec, National Steel Erectors, Fairbanks Morse, Bethlehem Steel, Continental Electronics, US Steel.

  1. JTTRE- All construction work for the establishment is carried out by local contractors to the Department of Construction. The original buildings were erected by L. Tinsling. The major extensions in 1972 were undertaken by K. A. and D. A. Petrie.
  2. JDSRF-Collins Radio Company (later Collins Radio Constructors Inc.), IBM, Thomson Ramo Woolridge (later TRW Systems Inc.) and Ling Temco Vought (LTV) (later E-Systems lnc).
  3. JDSCS-A. V. Jennings (Aust.), IBM, TRW, Philco Ford, Aerojet.

  4. PNTBMS Pearce and PNTBMS Amberley-NRA.

      1. (a) Australia contributes to the joint operation of a Royal Malaysian Air Force Base. The Base is at Butterworth in Peninsular Malaysia.
  5. No. 2 Squadron RAAF deployed on 1 July 1958 to Butterworth from Australia. After the UK formally handed over the Butterworth base to the Malaysian Government on 31 March 1970, agreement was reached between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of Australia for joint operation of the base. This agreement was deemed to have come into effect on 1 April 1 970.
  6. Provision of a base for flying operations by the RMAF and RAAF.

  7. Exchange of Notes between Australia and Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 1 December 1971 and Exchange of Notes between Malaysia and Australia, Kuala Lumpur, 9 June 1972.

    1. A flight, usually of six aircraft, is normally detached from the RAAF squadrons at Butterworth to the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) Base at:
  8. Tengah in Singapore.
  9. RAAF aircraft first deployed to Tengah in July 1950.
  10. The air base at Tengah is operated by the RSAF. The purpose of the detachment is to assist in the development of the Singapore Air Defence Forces.

  11. The detachment is maintained under the provisions of the Exchange of Notes between Singapore and Australia of 1 December 1 97 1 .

    1. In Papua New Guinea, Australia operates a Headquarters for the Australian Defence Co-operation Group.
  12. The Headquarters is located in Port Moresby.
  13. It has operated since Papua New Guinea attained independence in September 1975.
  14. The Headquarters provides administrative support to Australian loan personnel serving in the Papua New Guinea Defence Force and to Australian formed units operating in

Papua New Guinea under the Defence Co-operation Program.

  1. The Headquarters and the associated formed units and loan personnel operate in Papua New Guinea in accordance with the provisions of the following documents which were tabled in Parliament on 23 February 1 977:

    1. Joint Statement by Prime Ministers on the defence relationship between Papua New Guinea and Australia.
    2. A reciprocal Status of Forces Agreement.
    3. Consultations regarding the use of Australian loan personnel in politically sensitive situations.

Telephone Services: Local Call Areas (Question No. 1312)

Mr MacKenzie:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many of the 1,483,402 telephone services in New South Wales referred to in the 1976-77 Annual Report of Telecom were located within (a) the Sydney Telephone Zone, (b) the Sydney Telephone District 02 and (c) the broad area bounded by and including the Newcastle, Penrith, Campbelltown and Wollongong districts.
  2. Does the criterion used to determine metropolitan areas in the 1976-77 Annual Report of 24.1 km radius in Sydney and Melbourne correspond to the local call area for the respective metropolitan areas.
  3. How many telephone subscribers in New South Wales can call Sydney between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. for (a) 18c or less, (b) 45c or less, (c) 90c or less, (d) $1.35 or less, (e) $1.80 or less, (f) $2.02 or less and (g) $2.70 or less for 3 minutes.
  4. What criteria are used by Telecom to determine the boundaries of local service areas.
  5. What criteria are used by Telecom to program the upgrading of manual exchanges to automatic operation in country areas.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. (a) 850,910; (b) 935,506; (c) 1,156,133 (services located in the Newcastle, Gosford, Windsor, Sydney, Penrith, Campbelltown and Wollongong charging districts. )
  2. No. The explanatory note in Telecom ‘s Annual Report covers the definition of metropolitan areas used for statistical purposes.

Local call access in metropolitan areas (or any other area ) is determined by the principle that local calls are available between exchanges in the same or adjoining telephone zones. Consequently, the local call area for subscribers served by exchanges in, say, the Sydney metropolitan area covers exchanges in the metropolitan zone and those in all zones within the outer metropolitan area, each of which adjoins the metropolitan zone.

  1. Based on recent studies, and excluding subscribers in the Sydney metropolitan and outer metropolitan zones who can call Sydney for a local call fee, the number of telephone services from which the call charge to Sydney would fall in the categories mentioned is as follows:

    1. 62,169, (b) 130,686, (c) 262,673, (d) 443,867, (e) 534,327, ( f ) 579, 3 1 7, (g) 586,20 1 .
  2. The grouping of exchanges into zones and districts broadly follows the National Switching Plan which in turn has been based on an analysis of traffic flows between exchanges which indicated the direction of the main community of interest. In determining local call areas each centre is considered individually in relation to others in the area. The direction and extent of community of interest between centres is taken into account but other factors, including the geography of an area, population density and distribution and availability of reasonable community services within the existing local call area are important considerations.
  3. As it is not possible to convert all exchanges immediately priorities for conversion are based on a number of factors which include the number of subscribers involved, the service they are receiving, the capital required for conversion, the condition of external plant and exchange equipment in the area, and the need for extension of the exchange equipment.

Telecom plans to progressively extend the automatic network with all subscribers being connected to automatic exchanges in about ten years. As very high capital investment is involved it is important to extend the automatic network through each district on a planned basis.

Sales Tax on Sporting Goods (Question No. 1379)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1978:

How much revenue does the Federal Government obtain from sales tax on sporting goods.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

Statistics of sales tax paid or payable in respect of sales of sporting goods are not available. However, based on the information available it is estimated that the amount payable in respect of sales of equipment for gymnastics, athletics, sport and outdoor games (including arms and ammunition but excluding boats, bicycles and other sporting or recreational vehicles) is about $30m per annum.

Coal: Conversion to Oil or Gas (Question No. 1387)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 30 May 1978:

Further to his answer to question No. 939 (Hansard, 29 May 1978, page 27 14), who owns or controls the reserves of coal suitable for conversion to oil or gas which he listed.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

Further to my answer to question No. 939:

1) At Oaklands, NSW, Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd are holders of an exploration permit.

At Taroom, Queensland, titleholders of ‘Authorities to Prospect’ are:

Syncline Pty Ltd

Mines Administration Pty Ltd.

Wiltull Ltd.

Brigalow Mines Pty Ltd.

At Millmerran, Queensland, Millmerran Coal Pty Ltd is the titleholder of an ‘Authority to Prospect’.

In the Upper Hunter Valley, NSW companies and organisations which either independently or jointly operate existing colliery holdings, hold ‘Authorisations to Prospect’, Exploration Permits ‘ or ‘ Coal Leases ‘ are:

Barix Pty Ltd.

Bayswater Colliery Pty Ltd.

3 ) Bloomfield Collieries Pty Ltd.

Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd.

Buchanan Borehole Collieries Pty Ltd.

Carpentaria Exploration Co. Pty Ltd.

Consolidated Goldfields Australia Ltd.

Costain Australia Ltd.

Clutha Development Pty Ltd.

10) Department of Mines NSW.

Electricity Commission of NSW.

Eric Newham (Wallerawang) Pty Ltd.

Gollin Wallsend Coal Co. Ltd.

14) H.C. Sleigh Ltd.

1 5 ) Hebden Collieries Pty Ltd.

1 6 ) J. & A. Brown & Abermain Seaham Collieries Ltd.

Maitland Main Collieries Pty Ltd.

Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd.

19) Mount Sugarloaf Collieries Pty Ltd.

Muswellbrook Coal Co. Ltd.

1 ) R. W. Miller & Co. Pty Ltd.

) T & G Mutual Life Society Ltd.

The Newcastle Wallsend Coal Co. Pty Ltd.

Thiess Brothers Pty Ltd.

The Wambo Mining Corporation Pty Ltd.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment: Emergency Plan (Question No. 1390)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 30 May 1978:

  1. What are the arrangements which the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has with New South Wales authorities concerning the appropriate measures for the protection of persons and property, including evacuation as a last resort, in the areas around the research establishment at Lucas Heights should it become necessary.
  2. When were the arrangements first entered into.
  3. What possible dangers are the arrangements supposed to cover.
  4. What Commonwealth financial commitment is made in support of these arrangements.
  5. Which State instrumentalities’ co-operation has been sought and obtained.
  6. What direct funding has been given to the State instrumentalities in return for any commitment.

  7. Has the AAEC or any other Government instrumentality provided printed guidelines of the counter measures necessary depending on the nature of the possible accidents at the AAEC establishment at Lucas Heights, for the use of

    1. the State instrumentalities and authorities of the area,
    2. residents of the Sutherland Shire and (c) employees and workers at the research establishment.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A joint emergency plan has been drawn up by the AAEC and NSW authorities in case of accident at Lucas Heights. Divisions of responsibilities are:

The AAEC to inform NSW authorities at the onset of an emergency. The AAEC to be responsible for conducting emergency radiation monitoring surveys.

The NSW Police Department to control movements of the public is necessary.

The NSW Fire Brigade to assist in fire fighting as necessary.

The NSW Emergency Service to co-ordinate assistance by the various NSW authorities.

Health Commission of NSW to provide staff and laboratory facilities to assist in emergency radiation monitoring surveys.

NSW Central District Ambulance to provide support as necessary.

The Bureau of Meteorology to give advice on weather conditions.

  1. ) The first plan was drawn up in 1 964.
  2. The plan is designed to cope with all accidents such as fire, radioactive contamination and accidental release of radioactivity.
  3. None, in addition to the annual budget of the AAEC which includes a component for the Safety Department.
  4. See(l).
  5. None.

  6. (a) Yes, the emergency plan includes a description of countermeasures. Specific arrangements to be made at the time of an accident depending upon its nature, location, severity and prevailing climatic conditions.

    1. No. Individual residents would receive instructions on any necessary countermeasures at the time, depending upon the circumstances.
    2. Yes. The AAEC emergency organisation has a number of instructions relating to emergency situations. The duty safety co-ordinator has a handbook outlining safety procedures in case of an emergency.

Recycling of Waste Materials (Question No. 1453)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What arrangements are made in his Department and statutory authorities under his control for the recycling of waste materials such as paper, metals and glass.
  2. 2 ) If no arrangements for recycling presently exist, will he implement, or investigate the implementations of procedures for the recycling of waste materials.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The general arrangements in my Department and statutory authorities under my control is for any potentially valuable waste materials to be sold to commercial waste collection agencies or collected by charitable organisations.
  2. See(l).

National Water Resources Program: Assistance to Queensland (Question No. 1517)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Queensland Premier indicated to the Prime Minister his first priority under the National Water Resources Program for funding in Queensland.
  2. Will Stage 2 of the Ross River project receive funds under this program; if so, how much.
  3. When will funds be available for spending under this program.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 have been informed by the Queensland Minister for Water Resources of the State’s priorities for assistance under the five-year National Water Resources Program. These were made public in the Queensland Parliament on 8 August. Stage 2 of the Ross River Dam project is listed fourth in priority.
  2. and (3) The Budget for 1978-79 includes specific provisions for projects totalling $15,251 million and a provision for $5,828 million, which is yet to be allocated. Decisions on the allocation will be made and announced in the near future.

Official Reserve Assets (Question No. 1556)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. How much of Australia’s official reserve assets, in terms of Australian dollars, was held in (a) United States dollars, (b) Japanese yen, (c) German marks, (d) pounds sterling and (e) French francs at the end of each month from December 1 975 to 3 1 May 1 978.
  2. What quantity of gold was held as official reserve assets in each month since December 1975.
  3. What has been the average London gold price converted to Australian dollars at the market rate of exchange applying on the last day of the month for each month since December 1975.
Mr Howard:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1), (2) and (3) Official holdings of US dollars, sterling (to July 1976), and gold for the period from end December 1975 to end May 1978, together with the information sought concerning gold prices are set out in the table below:

Information concerning official holdings of other foreign currencies, or of sterling since July 1976, has not been published. Australia’s practice in this regard is in line with that followed by major overseas countries which confine publication to holdings of the one or two currencies in which the bulk of foreign exchange reserves is held and which are used for intervention purposes. Until the late 1960’s sterling carried this function for Australia; it has since been fulfilled by the US dollar.

Public Servants and Metal Trades Employees: Increases in Salaries and Awards (Question No. 1611)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on15 August1978:

  1. ) By what monetary amounts, as distinct from percentages, have the salaries of each grade, class and level of Australian public servant with a minimum of 3 years’ service in that grade, class or level increased since 30 June1 970.
  2. By what monetary amounts, as distinct from percentages, have the award rates under the Metal Trades Award increased for (a) a fully qualified toolmaker, (b) a fully qualified fitter and turner and (c) a fully qualified boilermaker with a minimum of 23 years’ service in his classification since 30 June1970.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2) The information is not readily available. I am advised by the Public Service Board that the question requires calculation and compilation of detailed information in respect of over 2,000 designations in the Public Service. I am not prepared to ask that this work be undertaken in view of the costs involved.

Superannuation: Medical Guidelines (Question No. 1626)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on15 August1978:

Will he table for the information of the Parliament the medical guidelines used in the administration of the Superannuation Act.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I have no objection to tabling the information referred to in the honourable member’s question and will arrange to have the relevant documents tabled as soon as possible.

Loan Council (Question No. 1653)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on15 August1978:

What are the dates on which the Loan Council has met since December1972.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Australian Loan Council has met on 8 occasions since December 1972.

The dates are: 103rd meeting-28-29 June 1973. 104th meeting-7 June 1974. 105th meeting-14 February 1975. 106th meeting-19 June 1975. 107th meeting-10 June 1976. 108th meeting-15 December 1976. 109th meeting-1 July 1977. 1 10th meeting-22-23 June 1978.

Commissioner of Taxation: Exercise of Discretions (Question No. 1667)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on15 August1978:

Will he give to the Parliament details of the criteria used by the Commissioner of Taxation for carrying out his various discretions under the Income Tax Assessment Act.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Commissioner has many discretions under the income tax law and it is not practicable to set out all the criteria he uses to exercise them. He is, however, constrained to exercise his discretionary powers reasonably and in accordance with law. Opinions formed by the Commissioner in exercising discretionary powers can be reviewed by Taxation Boards of Review and, in some circumstances, by the Courts.

Commissioner of Taxation: Reports to the Parliament (Question No. 1668)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on15 August1978:

Will he take steps to ensure that the Commissioner of Taxation carries out his legal obligation to report fully to the Parliament on his administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act, including particulars of the extent to which he has taken action under section1 36 of the Act.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Commissioner of Taxation has a statutory obligation to furnish annually to the Treasurer, for presentation to Parliament, a report on the working of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The form of the report including the taxation statistics supplement fully complies with that obligation. While the contents of this comprehensive report are largely for the Commissioner to determine, one of the important matters he must keep in mind is the requirement of the law not to disclose details of any individual taxpayer’s affairs, except in a case involving a breach or evasion of the Act.

Section1 36 of the Income Tax Assessment Act permits the Commissioner to assess tax on a taxable income greater than that returned by a taxpayer within a designated class if, in his opinion, this course should be taken. If the Commissioner takes that course his action does not carry with it the implication that the return lodged breached the income tax law in any way. Taxpayers within the designated class are legally obliged only to disclose the taxable income actually produced. It is on the basis of that, in conjunction with other information available to him from the taxpayer or other sources, that the Commissioner forms an opinion under section 136.

Relatively few assessments are raised each year pursuant to section 136. In the Commissioner’s view, publication of separate details of those cases in his Report could lead to identification of the taxpayers concerned and thus breach the secrecy provisions of the income tax law. The cases are therefore included with the appropriate industry groupings in the statistical information relating to companies generally.

Tax Avoidance (Question No. 1669)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on IS August 1978:

Will he allow members of the Parliament to see the reports given to the Government since 1 January 1976 on tax avoidance schemes including his estimate ofthe loss to revenue of such schemes.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

Wherever possible revenue effects have been stated in respect of matters on which the Government has, in its vigorous program of action against tax avoidance, already taken action. When further action is taken on other matters at present under consideration this information will be given to the extent that it is available. It is not customary to make Cabinet Submissions and kindred confidential reports available to members.

Australian Bureau of Statistics: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 1672)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. Did he discuss staff ceilings for the Australian Bureau of Statistics with the Australian Statistician, Dr R. J. Cameron.
  2. If so, did Dr Cameron agree with the staff ceilings that have been set.
  3. What sections will operate with lower staff numbers and with a restricted scope in the year 1978-79.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1) to (3) I discussed staff ceilings for the Australian Bureau of Statistics with the Australian Statistician and after a review of the forward work program proposed by the ABS and of the consequences for that work program of various levels of staff in the year ahead, a staff ceiling was set that required some curtailing ofthe program.

Reviews of numbers engaged on the following programs will be undertaken during 1978-79: public finance, agriculture, construction, transport, mining, internal trade and manufacturing. Projects deleted from the 1978-79 work program are preparations for a household income and expenditure survey, quarterly and annual job vacancy surveys, and statistics of foreign participation in particular sectors of the Australian economy.

Australian Bureau of Statistics: Abolition of Foreign Participation and Job Vacancy Surveys (Question No. 1673)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

What is the reason for disbanding two sections of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, namely, the one dealing with foreign ownership of Australian industry and the one dealing with job vacancies?

Mr Howard:
LP

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

As you are aware, the Government’s commitment to continuing financial constraint means that all departments and authorities have been required to exercise a very critical scrutiny of all their activities and to explore ways and means of redeploying limited resources to best effect.

After a review of the forward work program proposed by the Bureau of Statistics and of the consequences for that work program of various levels of staff in the year ahead, a staff ceiling was set that required some curtailing of this program.

The decision to discontinue particular collections took into account the nature of those collections: it was necessary to choose self-contained projects so that their termination would not have major repercussions on any related projects and therefore on users, and it was also necessary for the chosen projects to be small to medium in size so that it was possible not to concentrate the whole of the impact on one sector. After consideration of Ministerial views on alternative ways of curtailing the proposed statistical program, the Statistician decided that studies relating to foreign ownership and control of Australian industry and the job vacancies collection should be terminated.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: Objections to Funding from Taxation Revenue (Question No. 1684)

Mr Uren:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has at least one taxpayer written to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation saying that as the Australian Atomic Energy Commission received more than $22m in the last financial year, its operation offers no prospect of any contribution to Australia’s energy requirements in the foreseeable future and moreover, its activities pose a grave threat, both directly and indirectly to human health and survival, he or she conscientiously objected to making any contribution to the Commission and was therefore withholding his or her share of its funding.
  2. How many persons have objected to the use of their taxation contributions for nuclear research.
  3. Does he intend to extend to these conscientious objectors the same courtesy as his colleague the Minister for Education has promised to people objecting to the use of student union funds at The Australian National University.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No record can be found in the Australian Taxation Office of a taxpayer having written and conscientiously objected to making any contribution to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Nor is any taxpayer known to have withheld payment of tax for this reason.
  2. No record can be found in the Australian Taxation Office of any taxpayer having objected to the use of taxation contributions for nuclear research.
  3. It is the duty of the Australian Taxation Office to collect tax legally payable by taxpayers. There is no provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act for release from payment on account of conscientious objection.

Retirement of the Hon. L. H. Barnard as Ambassador to Sweden (Question No. 1696)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in Inside Canberra that he caused surprise when his statement on the retirement of Mr Lance Barnard as Ambassador to Sweden, Norway and Finland expressed not a line of appreciation for the services given by the former Labor Deputy Prime Minister in his diplomatic position?
  2. Is this not a radical departure from protocol?
  3. ) Is it an administrative blunder or a direct snub?
  4. Will he correct the unfortunate impression left by this regrettable episode?
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to Mr Hurford ‘s question on Mr Barnard’s retirement is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. No. There is no fixed procedure relating to or requiring public expressions of appreciation to retiring Heads of Mission, whether they are respected personalities such as the Hon. Lance Barnard or senior career officers with many years of service.
  3. Neither.
  4. On his return to Australia my Department expressed its appreciation to Mr Barnard. I was absent from Australia but with my warm concurrence the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs on 8 June wrote to Mr Barnard in the following terms:

On the conclusion of your term as Ambassador to Sweden, Norway, and Finland, I am writing to express my appreciation of your work in Stockholm.

You have represented Australia with dignity and distinction during your term as Ambassador. Your dedication to duty, efficient management of the Mission and capacity as a diplomatic representative have been a credit to Australia and to the Australian Foreign Service.

I join with your other colleagues in wishing you a happy retirement. ‘

I have publicly and privately, both before and after Mr Barnard ‘s retirement, expressed similar sentiments.

Migration of Medical Practitioners to Australia (Question No. 1703)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many permanent migrants have arrived in Australia since 1 946.
  2. 2 ) How many medical practitioners with foreign degrees have migrated to, and been registered in, Australia over the same period.
  3. What is the ratio of medical practitioners to population in Australia.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Prior to 1 959 no distinction was made between permanent and long term arrivals. Consequently, the number of permanent arrivals between 1 January 1946 and 30 June 1978 of 3,690,378 includes some long term arrivals.
  2. In the period 1 January 1946 to 30 June 1978, 9,847 medical practitioners migrated to Australia. To obtain information about the types of degree they held and the numbers who were subsequently registered in Australia would require examination of individual files- a very time consuming task.
  3. Based on the 1971 Census of Population and Housing, updated for subsequent arrivals, departures and deaths, the ratio of medical practitioners to population is approximately 1 : 620.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment: Protection against Radiation (Question No. 1723)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights, NSW, follow the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in setting standards on radiation exposure for workers in the industry and the general public.
  2. Can he say whether these standards are accepted by the United States Government.
  3. Is he also able to say whether the United States Environment Protection Agency has adopted standards which are 20 times more stringent than those of the ICRP and that the safer United States standards have been in operation since January 1977.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The Commission follows the recommendations on radiation standards of the National Health and Medical Research Council; these follow closely those of the ICRP.
  2. Yes.
  3. The USEPA standards promulgated in 1977 refer to exposure of members of the public to radiation in the environment from the normal operation of the US nuclear power cycle. The ICRP has not recommended standards for this limited field. Consequently, no comparison can be made between the two standards.

Directives under Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act (Question No. 1725)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

What directives have been issued by him under sections 16, 17 and 35 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

Directives have been issued under Sections 16(3), 16(4). 17 (4) and 35 (b) of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970. in relation to the following matters:

Section 16 (3)- Detailed working arrangements of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Consultative Committee set up in accordance with the Act.

Section 16 (4)- The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Consultative Committee to advise the Minister whether and how a function in respect of particular engineering work should be exercised by the Corporation.

Section 17 (4)- Section 17(3) of Act not to apply to specified classes of consultancy work.

Section 35 (b)- Statements of the Corporation’s current and prospective works, and staff figures, to be furnished to Minister at regular intervals.

Net Migrant Arrivals (Question No. 1735)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

How many and what percentage of total net migrant arrivals were admitted to Australia in the following categories during 1977-78: (a) family reunion; (b) refugees; (c) occupationally eligible; (d) New Zealanders; (e) specially approved cases and (0 other.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Information about departures from Australia is not yet available for the full year 1977-78 and therefore it is not possible to give details of net migrant arrivals. This information will be provided as soon as it becomes known. The following figures relate, therefore, to gross settler arrivals in 1977-78.

Source: Preliminary tabulations prepared by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from data on incoming passenger cards.

New South Wales Aboriginal Family Education Centres Federation (Question No. 1744)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 6 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has the New South Wales Aboriginal Family Education Centres Federation informed the Regional Director (Eastern), Department of Aboriginal Affairs, that it decided on 6 April 1 978 to refuse Federal funding for the last quarter of 1978-79.
  2. Has the Federation been an autonomous allAboriginal self-help movement since 1969 emphasising aboriginality and family education especially for infants and their parents, run mainly by people supporting themselves by taking menial contract work despite having done special training at Sydney University.
  3. Did the Federation complain that the sub-total public funding support given did not warrant the time required for continually repeated explanations to a succession of junior officials of what they were doing and why they did not want to be a pre-school.
  4. Will the Government allocate funds for 1978-79 for self-help autonomous educational activities of a type desired, designed and directed by consuming Aboriginal communities.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Federation was formed in 1974 to support local Aboriginal family education centres using materials and methods originally prepared in association with the Adult Education Department of the University of Sydney.
  3. Yes.
  4. Grants-in-aid will be made in 1978-79, as in previous years, for educational projects initiated and supported by Aboriginal communities.

Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council (Question No. 1752)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many meetings have been held by the Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council since its formation and on what dates were these meetings held.
  2. What subjects were considered by the Council at those meetings.
  3. What recommendations, or reports, have been submitted to the Government by the Council.
  4. What action has the Government taken in respect of each of those recommendations or reports.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Apart from the inaugural meeting on 2 March 1978, two meetings have been held- on 9 May 1 978 and 8 August 1978.
  2. At the meetings the more important matters discussed were the need for port development and organisation in Australia, the operation of arrangements relating to the reduction and the better utilisation of the stevedoring labour force, the cost structure of the stevedoring industry, the collection and availability of statistical material and some studies of interest to the stevedoring industry being undertaken by other organisations.
  3. No formal recommendations or reports have as yet been presented to the Government.
  4. Not applicable.

Australian Bureau of Statistics: Cessation of Statistical Collections (Question No. 1771)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statistical collections ceased during 1 977-78.
  2. ) What statistical collections are to cease during 1 978-79 or later.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Plans for an economic census of wholesale trade in respect of 1977-78 were abandoned.
  2. Plans for a household income and expenditure survey in respect of 1979-80 have been abandoned. The quarterly and annual job vacancy surveys and further foreign participation studies have been discontinued. The agricultural finance survey will be conducted on a triennial, rather than annual, basis after the 1977-78 survey.

Ministerial Travel Overseas (Question No. 1800)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 August 1978:

Where and when has he travelled overseas since 11 November 1975.

Mr Street:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 18-30 September 1976- 6th Conference of Asian Labour Ministers, Teheran. 2-7 October 1976- 4th Conference of South Pacific Labour Ministers, Nauru. 4-27 June 1977- 63rd Session ofthe International Labour Conference, Geneva, followed by a meeting with the Secretary-General and senior officials of the OECD in Paris and discussions with Labour Ministers and leaders of trade union and employer organisations in the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan. 12-18 March 1978- 7th Conference of Asian and Pacific Labour Ministers, Wellington. 7-28 June 1978- 64th Session of the International Labour Conference, Geneva; discussions with the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris; discussions with Labour Ministers and leaders of trade union and employer organisations in Yugoslavia, West Germany, Sweden and the United States. 15-25 September 1978-To Japan as leader ofthe Australian Tripartite Mission on Industrial Relations.

Arnhem Highway: Extension to Jabiluka (Question No. 1813)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Had construction ofthe Arnhem Highway extension to Jabiluka, NT commenced before 17 August 1978.
  2. Had the Government authorised the carrying out of any works associated with construction of the Arnhem Highway extension before 17 August 1978; if so, what form did this authorisation take.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The honourable member’s attention is drawn to the following statement made by my colleague, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, on 2 1 August 1978:

The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Ray Groom, said today that Pancontinental had given an assurance that no work had begun on the Arnhem Highway extension.

Contrary to claims by the Opposition Spokesman for Urban and Regional Affairs, Mr Tom Uren, no activity beyond the permitted survey had been undertaken on the highway’s proposed 25 kilometre extension.

Mr Groom said no decision had been taken on Pancontinental ‘s proposal.

The Department has only today completed its examination of the final Environmental Impact Statement submitted by the Company, Mr Groom said.

As required under the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures, he had sent his recommendations to the Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Evan Adermann, with copies to other Ministers involved.

Arnhem Highway: Extension to Jabiluka (Question No. 1815)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

What action has been taken, and when was it taken, to consult with (a) traditional Aboriginal land owners, and (b) the Northern Land Council in regard to the proposed extension of the Arnhem Highway.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. The Department consulted with traditional owners on the extension to the Arnhem Highway on 20-2 1 May and between 18-21 August for the purpose of ascertaining the location of any Aboriginal sites of significance on or near the alignment of the proposed extension of the Arnhem Highway.
  2. The Northern Land Council was aware of the Departmental consultations and declined to co-operate in the discussions of 20-21 May but participated in the August consultations.

Aboriginal Housing (Question No. 1834)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. What was the Commonwealth Government’s (a) appropriation for and (b) expenditure on Aboriginal housing m each ofthe following categories during 1 977-78; (i) grants to each State; (ii) grants-in-aid; (iti) Aboriginal Housing Associations; (iv) Aboriginal Housing and Personal Loans Fund; (v) Aboriginal Hostels; (vi) missions; (vii) the R.A.I.A. Housing Panel, and (viti) other.
  2. What were the reasons for any discrepancies between the appropriation and expenditure in each of the categories.
  3. What is the Commonwealth Government’s appropriation for Aboriginal housing in each of the same categories for 1978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Information concerning appropriation and expenditure on Aboriginal programs is available in the 1978-79 Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3.

Aboriginal Cultural and Recreational Activities (Question No. 1836)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

  1. What was the Commonwealth Government’s (a) appropriation for and (b) expenditure on Aboriginal cultural and recreational activities in each of the following categories during 1977-78: (i) grants to each State; (ii) grants-in-aid, and (iii) sporting activities.
  2. What were the reasons for any discrepancies between appropriation and expenditure in each of the categories.
  3. What is the Commonwealth Government’s appropriation for Aboriginal cultural and recreational activities in each of the same categories for 1978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Information concerning appropriation and expenditure on Aboriginal programs is available in the 1978-79 Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3.

Aboriginal Enterprises (Question No. 1837)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August1978:

  1. What was the Commonwealth Government’s (a) appropriation for and (b) expenditure on Aboriginal enterprises in each of the following categories during 1977- 78: (i) grants to each State; (ii) grants-in-aid; (iii) the Aboriginal Enterprises Fund; (iv) the Aboriginal Land Fund; (v) the Aboriginal Publications Foundation; (vi) ecological projects, and (vii) other.
  2. What were the reasons for any discrepancies between appropriation and expenditure in each of the categories.
  3. What is the Commonwealth Government’s appropriation for Aboriginal enterprises in each of the same categories for 1978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Information concerning appropriation and expenditure on Aboriginal programs is available in the 1978- 79 Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs, National Aboriginal Conference and Institute of Aboriginal Studies (Question No. 1838)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August1978:

  1. What was the Commonwealth Government’s (a) appropriation for and (b) expenditure on the following areas during 1977-78: (i) administration of his Department; (ii) the National Aboriginal Conference, and (iii) the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
  2. What were the reasons for any discrepancies between appropriation and expenditure in each of the areas specified in part (1 ).
  3. What is the Commonwealth Government’s appropriation for each of the areas specified in pan (1 ) for1 978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Information concerning appropriation and expenditure on Aboriginal programs in available in the 1 978-79 Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3.

Aboriginal Legal Aid (Question No. 1839)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal

Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August1978:

  1. What was the Commonwealth Government’s (a) appropriation for and (b) expenditure on Aboriginal Legal Aid during 1977-78.
  2. What were the reasons for any discrepancy between appropriation and expenditure.
  3. What is the Commonwealth Government’s appropriation for Aboriginal Legal Aid for1978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Information concerning appropriation and expenditure on Aboriginal programs is available in the 1978-79 Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3.

Aboriginal Education (Question No. 1840)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August1978:

  1. ) What was the Commonwealth Government’s (a) appropriation for and (b) expenditure on Aboriginal education in each of the following categories during1 977-78: (i) grants to each State; (ii) grants-in-aid; (iii) the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme; (iv) the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme; (v) Overseas Study Grants; (vi) Aboriginal education services in the Northern Territory, and (vii) the National Aboriginal Education Committee.
  2. What were the reasons for any discrepancies between appropriation and expenditure in each of the categories.
  3. What is the Commonwealth Government’s appropriation for Aboriginal education in each of the same categories for 1978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Information concerning appropriation and expenditure on Aboriginal programs is available in the 1978-79 Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3.

Aboriginal Employment (Question No. 1841)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. What was the Commonwealth Government’s (a) appropriation for and (b) expenditure on Aboriginal employment in each of the following categories during1977-78: (i) grants to each State, (ii) grants-in-aid, (iii) employment training and (iv) the National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee (1978 and 1979).
  2. What were the reasons for any discrepancies between appropriation and expenditure in each of the categories.
  3. What is the Commonwealth Government’s appropriation for Aboriginal employment in each of the same categories for1978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Information concerning appropriation and expenditure on Aboriginal programs is available in the 1 978-79 Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3.

Aboriginal Health (Question No. 1842)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

  1. What was the Commonwealth Government’s (a) appropriation for and (b) expenditure on Aboriginal health in each of the following categories during 1 977-78; (i) grants to each State, (ii) grants-in-aid, and (iti) Aboriginal Health Services in the Northern Territory.
  2. What were the reasons for any discrepancies between appropriation and expenditure in each of the categories.
  3. What is the Commonwealth Government’s appropriation for Aboriginal health in each of the same categories for 1978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Information concerning appropriation and expenditure on Aboriginal programs is available in the 1 978-79 Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3.

Aboriginal Welfare (Question No. 1843)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What was the Commonwealth Government’s (a) appropriation for and (b) expenditure on Aboriginal welfare in respect of (i) grants to each State and (ii) grants-in-aid during 1977-78.
  2. What were the reasons for any discrepancies between appropriation and expenditure in each of the categories.
  3. What is the Commonwealth Government’s appropriation for Aboriginal welfare in each of these categories for 1978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Information concerning appropriation and expenditure on Aboriginal programs is available in the 1978-79 Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3.

Jabiluka Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Question No. 1844)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Did officers of his Department assist in the planning of meetings with the Northern Land Council, local Aboriginal people and Pancontinental Mining Company in order to explain the Jabiluka Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement to local Aboriginal people.
  2. How many meetings were held, where, and on what dates.
  3. Did officers of his Department attend any of these meetings; if so, which meetings did they attend.
  4. Which agencies or groups were represented at each of these meetings.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Apart from the consultations mentioned in my answer to Question No. 1815 officers of my Department have not been involved in any meetings between the Northern Land Council, local Aboriginal people and Pancontinental Mining

Company to explain the Jabiluka Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Northern Land Council is an autonomous Statutory Aboriginal body. (2), (3) and (4) See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Nabarlek Uranium Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Question No. 1845)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did officers of his Department assist in the planning of meetings with the Northern Land Council, local Aboriginal people and Queensland Mines Ltd, in order to explain the Nabarlek Uranium Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement to local Aboriginal people.
  2. How many meetings were held, where, and on what dates.
  3. Did officers of his Department attend any of these meetings; if so, which meetings did they attend.
  4. Which agencies or groups were represented at each of these meetings.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. No. The Northern Land Council is an autonomous statutory Aboriginal body.
  2. , (3) and (4) See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Vegetable Oils: Vinyl Chloride Monomer Levels (Question No. 1849)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

Following the 1976-77 survey of vinyl chloride monomer levels in vegetable oils contained in polyvinyl chloride containers, what action has been taken in relation to the oils whose vinyl chloride monomer levels were found to be above the limit prescribed by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The results of the 1976-77 survey were communicated to State and Territory health authorities who have the responsibility for public health action in their respective areas.

I would point out that the vegetable oils covered by this survey had been prepared and packaged before the National Health and Medical Research Council limits had been set.

The question of vinyl chloride monomer levels in plastics for food contact applications was fully discussed with industry. Co-operation was excellent both from manufacturers and the Plastics Institute of Australia. Immediate steps were taken to survey the situation and to reduce levels of vinyl chloride monomer in polyvinyl chloride containers.

A further survey of vinyl chloride monomer levels in vegetable oils packaged in PVC containers was carried out in 1977-78 by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. This survey involved the analysis of 330 samples of all available brands selected from retail food outlets throughout Australia.

Only two of these 330 samples contained vinyl chloride monomer levels in excess of the N.H. and M.R.C. recommended maximum level of 0.05mg/kg.

The date coding on one of these two samples showed that it was packaged in September 1975, that is before the N.H. and M.R.C. limits were recommended.

The bottle which contained the other defective sample bore no date coding.

The N.H. and M.R.C. will continue to keep this matter under review and is currently considering lowering the current recommended levels in view of the results of this later survey.

Radiation (Question No. 1853)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. Did the Australian Radiation Laboratory conduct a survey in 1957 to estimate the mean exposure to radiation of the Australian population.
  2. If so, did this study find that the average genetic dose per capita for the Australian population was 5.2 rem.
  3. Is he able to say whether comparable studies performed in the United States of America, United Kingdom and New Zealand found these populations were exposed to average genetic doses per capita of 0.5 rem, 0.4 rem and 0.4 rem respectively.
  4. What was the cause of the relatively high mean radiation exposure levels of the Australian population.
  5. What conclusions and recommendations were made as a result of the Australian study.
  6. Were the findings of this study regarded as unreliable.
  7. If so, was a decision made to repeat the 1957 study.
  8. 8 ) When was this decision made. (9.) When was this second survey performed, and by whom.
  9. What was the reason for any delay in repeating the survey.
  10. Have results of the most recent survey been published.
  11. 12) If so, what were the findings and conclusions of this survey.
  12. 13) If the results of the most recent survey have not been published, when will they be-published.
  13. 14) What is the current Australian radiation exposure limit for members of the public.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) A private survey of a limited nature was conducted by J. H. Martin of the Cancer Institute, Melbourne in 1955. The Australian Radiation Laboratory has been involved since the mid-50 ‘s in measuring and assessing radiation doses received by patients undergoing specific x-ray examinations, but not at a level suitable for national survey purposes. Apan from the current national survey which is being conducted for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) and which is now nearing completion, the laboratory has made national assessments of population dose resulting from occupational exposure in 1961, 1966-67 and 1971. The latter two were reported to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects’ Of Atomic Radiation. These gave genetically significant doses closely comparable with results obtained in other countries. Since 1956 the Australian Radiation Laboratory has been responsible for monitoring radioactive fallout throughout Australia arising from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. The assessment of exposure to the population shows doses resulting from fallout are very small compared with natural background.
  2. From Martin’s figures, the per capita dose from diagnostic radiology can be calculated to be 4.9 rem which is high.
  3. For diagnostic radiology, per capita doses are 0.5 rem U.S. (1964), 0.6 rem U.S. (1970), 0.4 rem U.K. ( 1957), 0.4 rem N.Z.(1963).
  4. There is no reason to believe Australian figures should be significantly higher than those in countries with similar medical services.

  5. Martin’s papers were published in medical journals with some recommendations on dose reduction. Independently the NH and MRC has taken the following action:

    1. Created a Radiation Hazards Committee to investigate the effects of exposure of the population from medical procedures (Report of 43rd Session, 1957, page 14).
    2. Circulated a Special Report to medical and dental associations (Report of 44th Session, 1957, page 20 and Report of 48th Session, 1 959, page 30)
    3. Recommended against a survey to evaluate population exposure in 1959 but arranged for administrative and educational action to reduce exposures (Report of 47th Session, 1959, page 14).
    4. Issued recommendations on radiological examination of pregnant women and of women of reproductive age (report of 5 7th Session, 1964, page 19).
    5. Discussed with Attorney-General’s Department legal requirements for duplication of radiography (Report of 62nd Session, 1966, page 18).
    6. Published Minimizing Radiological Hazards to Patients (Report of 62nd Session, 1966, page 43).
  6. The results of Martin’s study were considered unreliable as the methods used were not adequately described, measurements were made in only a few hospitals, statistics and child-bearing factors used were of dubious value and a number of unsubstantiated assumptions were made.
  7. and (8) In 1967, NH & MRC agreed to a nation-wide survey and gave approval and a grant in June 1 969 for it. The survey is to determine genetic and bone-marrow doses to the Australian population from medical, dental and chiropractic radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine.
  8. The survey commenced in 1970 and is still being undertaken by the Radiation Health Committee of NH & MRC in conjunction with the Australian Radiation Laboratory and with some State Health Department assistance.
  9. 10) Because of (4) and (5) (b) it was felt better to reduce exposures first whenever possible without waiting for a survey to be undertaken.
  10. No.
  11. See 11.
  12. It is expected that measurements and calculations will be finished by the end of 1979 and a report will be then prepared for Council.
  13. 14) Values of 0.5 rem for whole body, gonad and bone marrow dose limits per calendar year for members of the public are recommended by the NH & MRC in its revised radiation protection standards 1967, re-issued 1977. These are in accordance with international recommendations and exclude natural background radiation and radiation received from medical procedures.

Mining Companies, Profitability (Question No. 1884)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. What gross profits are being earned by respective companies from the resource extractive industries involved in minerals and energy;
  2. 2 ) What is their return on capital invested;
  3. How much tax is paid to (a) the Commonwealth Government and ( b) the States;
  4. How many persons are employed by each of these companies.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

(3)-

  1. 1 ) and (2) Information on the profitability of major listed mining companies can be found in the Mining and Oil Service and the Statex Service of the Sydney Stock Exchange Research Service, copies of which can be obtained through the Parliamentary Library.

A survey of the profitability of the mining sector was carried out by the Industries Assistance Commission as part of its 1976 Inquiry into the Petroleum and Mining Industries. The results (based on the evidence of 27 larger mineral producers) are set out below:

  1. Information on the number of persons employed by individual mining companies is not available from official sources. However, figures for total employment by the mining sector are published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and show that 67,888 persons were employed as at June 1977. (ABS Catalogue No. 8402.0).

Schools in the Electoral Division of Melbourne Ports: Commonwealth Funding (Question No. 1903)

Mr Holding:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which State and private schools in the Electoral Division of Melbourne Ports have received Commonwealth Grants during each of the years 1971 to 1978.
  2. ) For each school what was (a) the amount received, (b) the purpose for which the grant was made and (c) the fund from which the grant was paid.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It is not possible to provide information in respect of payments to individual government schools except in relation to grants made under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program and the Disadvantaged Schools Program of the Schools Commission. The Commonwealth Government provides bulk funding to the Victorian Government for government schools programs to disburse on a needs basis as it sees fit.

Funds for non-government schools in the electoral division of Melbourne Ports in the period in question have been made available under programs administered by the Department of Education and the Schools Commission.

  1. Programs administered by the Department of Education: Funds administered by the Department of Education were made available under the following acts:

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1 97 1

States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1 969

States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1 97 1

States Grants (Schools) Act 1972

Payments made under these acts are set out in reports which were tabled in the Senate on the dates listed below:

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971: 27 October 1972; 12 December 1973; 28 October 1975; 4 May 1976.

States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969: 13 December 1972; 12 March 1974; 5 December 1974.

States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1971: 17 May 1972; 3 April 1973; 23 July 1974; 29 May 1975.

States Grants (Schools) Act 1972: 12November 1974.

  1. Programs administered by the Schools Commission: Payments for the years 1974-76 are set out in the reports which were tabled in the Senate on the dates listed below:

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1972 -Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1974-75-19 May 1976.

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1975-76-2 November 1977.

Report- States Grants (Schools) Act 1972- Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1976-77-23 February 1978.

Report- States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1 974- 1 October 1 975.

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1973- Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1975-30 November 1976.

Report- States Grants (Schools) Act 1 973- Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1 976-25 August 1 977.

Report- States Grants (Schools) Act 1976- Financial Assistance granted to each State- 23 February 1978.

Information in respect of the years 1977 and 1978 is not covered in the above reports. In relation to non-government schools it is set out in the schedules below.

The following funds have been allocated to government schools in Victoria through Schools Commission Programs:

The following government schools in the electorate of Melbourne Ports received Innovations Grants in 1977 and 1978:

Grants paid to government schools under the Disadvantaged Schools Program in the financial years 1976-77 and 1977-78 are as follows:

The following shared projects, in which some of the non-government schools in the electorate participated, were funded under the Disadvantaged Schools Program in 1977: {:#subdebate-46-41} #### National Aboriginal Conference (Question No. 1915) {: #subdebate-46-41-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 12 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When will the appointment of the Secretary-General and Executive Officer of the National Aboriginal Conference be announced. 1. What role does the Conference play in the formulation of Government policies on Aboriginal affairs. {: #subdebate-46-41-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The appointment of **Mr Ray** McEwan from Western Australia to the position of Secretary-General and **Mr Graham** Paulson of Canberra as Executive Officer of the National Aboriginal Conference Secretariat, was announced by the Chairman ofthe NAC, **Ms. Lois** O 'Donoghue, on 1 1 September 1978. 1. The role ofthe NAC is explained in detail in a statement I made to the House of Representatives on 30 May 1 977 (see *Hansard,* pages 2 104-2 111). {:#subdebate-46-42} #### Radioactive Waste (Question No. 1925) {: #subdebate-46-42-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 13 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have any recommendations been made to him by officers ofthe New South Wales Health Commission and the Austraiian Atomic Energy Commission on a suitable site and method of disposal of material from Hunters Hill, New South Wales, which is contaminated by radio-active tailings. 1. If so, what recommendations were made. 2. What decisions on a site and method of disposal have been made. 3. If no recommendations or decisions have been made, when are they expected. {: #subdebate-46-42-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. and (3) See answer to ( 1 ). 2. Officers ofthe New South Wales Health Commission and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission have met on a number of occasions, the latest being on 1 8 September. No indication has been given as to when the officers expect to be able to bring forward agreed recommendations jointly to the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments. {:#subdebate-46-43} #### Radioactive Waste (Question No. 1926) {: #subdebate-46-43-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 13 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the total cost of transportation, storage and final disposal of the material from Hunters Hill, NSW, contaminated by radio-active tailings. 1. What was the cost to the Commonwealth Government. 2. What site and method were used for interim storage pending a decision on the final disposal. 3. What procedures exist for determining whether other similar radio-active tailings need to be disposed of more adequately. 4. Will a national nuclear waste dump be established to provide for the disposal of other similarly contaminated material. 5. If so, what sites are being considered for such a dump. {: #subdebate-46-43-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) See answer to question No. 1925. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The management of low level radio-active waste arising from the mining and milling of radio-active ores is analogous to normal waste management in the mining industry at large. In the States the regulation of mining practice is a matter for the State Governments concerned. In the Northern Territory, matters concerning uranium and related issues were specifically excluded from the grant of executive authority to Territory Ministers under the Northern Territory (Self Government) Act, which came into effect on 1 July 1978. In order to ensure that there will be co-operative development of uniform nuclear codes of practice to cover such matters as the management of waste from the mining and milling of uranium ores throughout Australia, the Commonwealth passed the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act in May 1978. 1. and (6) See (4) as to the management and disposal of low level radio-active wastes. As Australia has, at this stage, no plans for developing a nuclear industry generating high level radio-active wastes the question of disposal of such wastes does not arise. {:#subdebate-46-44} #### Coastal Surveillance (Question No. 1933) {: #subdebate-46-44-s0 .speaker-JXQ} ##### Mr Fry: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What contractual arrangements have been entered into concerning surveillance of Australia's coastline by sea and air. 1. What will be the total cost of such an arrangement during 1978-79. {: #subdebate-46-44-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Public tenders were invited in August 1978 for the following tasks: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. daily air patrols of the northern coastline between Geraldton and Cairns by chartered light twin aircraft, and 1. b) provision of three specially equipped chartered light twin aircraft for the full time use of the Bureau of Customs. The aircraft will be stationed at Port Hedland, Darwin and Townsville and will be deployed as required. The closing date for daily air patrol tenders was 19 September, and the closing date for Customs aircraft tenders is 10 October. The tenders call for two year contracts which will be arranged as soon as possible. In the meantime ad hoc charter flights are being undertaken in selected areas of the northern coastline. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Charter aircraft arrangements are likely to cost about $4m during 1978-79. {:#subdebate-46-45} #### Aboriginal Reserves, Queensland (Question No. 1934) {: #subdebate-46-45-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Queensland Supreme Court on S October 1976 decide that **Mr Killoran** as trustee of an Aboriginal reserve must account for all moneys in respect of mining on that reserve, keep properly audited books and devote the proceeds to the reserve, not to the Aboriginal Welfare Fund. 1. Has he sought advice as to the proper accounting, auditing and use of moneys derived from other enterprises under the control of **Mr Killoran** on Aboriginal reserves. 2. Does the Commonwealth Government require access to these accounts before deciding the amounts of its grants to the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement. {: #subdebate-46-45-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) If the honourable member wishes to read the judgment referred to, I can provide a copy of it. The defendant in the case appealed to the Privy Council which reversed the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court. 1. and (3) No. {:#subdebate-46-46} #### Aboriginal Affairs, Aurukun (Question No. 1937) {: #subdebate-46-46-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is he able to say whether the Queensland Ombudsman, **Mr David** Longland, reported to the Queensland Parliament on 6 April 1 976, that ( a) the Aurukun people were in fear and angry because promises of consultation had been broken twice with regard to prospecting and mining and entry permission had not been sought and (b) associated Church dignitaries intervened to suggest that Aborigines should not in retaliation break their promises, but be prepared to negotiate if the chance was finally offered to them to do so adequately. 1. If so, does the report contradict claims of Queensland Ministers that the Church was (a) a purveyor of fears, innuendoes and half-truths or (b) interested only in getting money from possible mining of Aurukun land. {: #subdebate-46-46-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) (a) I have read the report of the Queensland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations dated 6 April 1976. The Report includes findings that the Aurukun people were aggrieved and offended regarding the lack of promised consultations on mining, and accordingly held fears on the protection of their way of life. The Commissioner recommended further consultations. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The Report made no mention of Church advice to Aboriginals on the question of mining or participation in negotiations. 1. See answer to ( 1 ). Incidents associated with the Funeral of an Aboriginal at Woorabinda (Question No. 1950) {: #subdebate-46-46-s2 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to say whether (a) a Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement official instructed or advised Hubert Dooley, a driver employed at Woorabinda, to take Jane Ray, her grandson and Caroline Saunders with him on the front seat of a hearse carrying a coffin containing the body of **Mrs Ray's** late younger brother, Ruben Salmon, from Rockhampton to Woorabinda on 2 August 1978 for a funeral; (b) the vehicle was stopped several kilometres from Woorabinda and the 4 occupants ordered by the Sergeant of police and/or Manager from Woorabinda to alight and burn their belongings; if so, why; (c) Robert Bundle, Chairman of Woorabinda Council, and others engaged **Mr Jeremy** Harper, solicitor, of the Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service, Rockhampton, to obtain redress for **Mrs Ray, Mrs Saunders** and **Mr Dooley** for their loss, intimidation and mistreatment; (d) some of these persons, whose employment, housing and other aspects of personal and family security depend on the Woorabinda Manager, after speaking with the then Manager, **Mr Topham,** reversed their requests to **Mr Harper;** (e) **Mr Topham** advised **Mr Harper** that **Mr Dooley** had withdrawn his request for legal aid because he had not understood the full ramifications of what he was saying; (0 **Mr Dooley** has been demoted from his job as driver to work at the cemetery; if so, when and why; (g) **Mr Bundle** improperly took from canteen takings $130 with **Mr Topham** 's knowledge, to recompense **Mrs Ray** in part for her loss and $30 to recompense **Mr Dooley** in part for his loss of belongings burnt on the roadside; (h) the goods burnt included two blankets and a nightgown given to **Mrs Saunders** before she left hospital in Brisbane to return to Woorabinda via Rockhampton, **Mrs Ray's** suitcase, clothing she had bought for the funeral, a $20 note, the shoes **Mrs Ray** was wearing and her other belongings except the clothes she wore, a Bible, a family photograph and camera which she hid behind a log and recovered later; (i) the Manager and or Sergeant refused **Mrs Ray,** who had travelled all night from Townsville for the funeral, a lift into Woorbinda 'to hear the singing for her brother' but offered to hold up the funeral until another vehicle picked her up; (j ) the funeral service in fact finished before she arrived; (k) a crowd gathered outside the office to demonstrate their anger, causing the Sergeant to send for police reinforcements; (1) the Manager requested a number of Woorabinda people, **Mr Ray** and a Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs liaison officer, who has since left the settlement, to sign a statement exonerating him; (m) **Mr Dooley** signed such a statement which he did not fully understand; (n) others signed and some refused to sign these statements; (o) the Woorabinda community is so oppressed by the Queensland laws and settlement regulations, which have been condemned by the Commissioner for Community Relations as contrary to international human rights, that they fear for their homes, jobs and safety to the extent that they are unwilling to testify to the oppression while the Sergeant remains in authority there, and (p) several complaints have been made to police, to the Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service and to **Mr N.** Blair, National Aboriginal Congress representative, about Sergeant O'Shea exploiting financially, intimidating, illtreating and procuring wrongful convictions of Woorabinda residents. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Will he request a Royal Commission to report on the situation, requesting prompt suspension of the Sergeant until the inquiry is concluded with the appointment of interim replacements jointly nominated by the State and Federal Governments and approved by the Woorabinda Council in the presence only of **Senator Bonner,** a locally trusted Legal Aid Officer and/or **Mr Blair,** and act to remove the effect of the Queensland Act and regulations and to take over the settlement and Foleyvale cattle station if a long-standing reign of intimidation is disclosed. {: #subdebate-46-46-s3 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) No. These are matters for investigation by the State authorities concerned and for legal action by the Queensland Aboriginal and T.S.I. Legal Service acting on behalf of the Aboriginal people involved who may wish to seek redress.. {:#subdebate-46-47} #### Answer to Parliamentary Question 1594 (Question No. 1997) {: #subdebate-46-47-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 14 September 1 978: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1S94. {: #subdebate-46-47-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 1972 *(Hansard,* 21 Sep:tember 1978, page 1338). {:#subdebate-46-48} #### Answer to Parliamentary Question 1625 (Question No. 2026) {: #subdebate-46-48-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 14 September 1978. When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 625. {: #subdebate-46-48-s1 .speaker-KZL} ##### Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 10 October 1978 REPRESENTATIVES 1679 Question No. 1625 was answered by the Acting Minister for Finance on 28 September 1978 (House of Representatives *Hansard,* page 1586). {:#subdebate-46-49} #### Answer to Parliamentary Question 1626 (Question No. 2027) {: #subdebate-46-49-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 14 September 1978: >When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 626. {: #subdebate-46-49-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 1972 *(Hansard,* 21 September 1978, page 1338). {:#subdebate-46-50} #### Answer to Parliamentary Question 1659 (Question No. 2055) {: #subdebate-46-50-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 14 September 1978: >When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 659. {: #subdebate-46-50-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by me to his Question on Notice No. 1659. (See *Hansard,* 2 1 September 1978, page 1338). {:#subdebate-46-51} #### Conference of World Council for Indigenous Peoples: Assistance to National Aboriginal Conference (Question No. 2078) {: #subdebate-46-51-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the Government provide a matching grant of $100,000 to the World Council for Indigenous Peoples which has resolved to hold its third General Assembly in Australia in September 1979. 1. Will he consult with the National Aboriginal Conference which supports this resolution to assist their organising committee with arrangements for the Conference. 2. Should Qantas and TAA be nominated as Conference airlines and other Government facilities be engaged by the Conference, would the tourist and other industries return most ofthe cost to the Government. 3. Has his attention been drawn to the reasons given by the Canadian and Greenland delegates for nominating Australia, noting the Prime Minister's support for the third and fourth worlds and his stand on Africa in London in June 1977. 4. Has he had representations from the Institute for Aboriginal Studies or other organisations pointing out the incalculable benefits of such a conference and promoting minicultural understanding and cultural development. {: #subdebate-46-51-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (l) to (4) The question of financial and other support to the National Aboriginal Conference for the holding of a conference of the World Council for Indigenous Peoples in Australia in 1979 .s under examination. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-46-52} #### National Aboriginal Conference: Staff of Secretariat (Question No. 2120) {: #subdebate-46-52-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did **Mr Greg** McNamara, a non-Aboriginal, acting as co-ordinator in the National Aboriginal Conference executive selection panel, wrongly inform the panel that David Anderson, an Aboriginal applicant for the two senior positions on the National Aboriginal Conference Secretariat was overseas. 1. Did members of the panel later state that they would have given preference to **Mr Anderson.** 2. ) Who is responsible for the failure to call **Mr Anderson** for interview and for misleading the panel. 3. What action has been taken to correct this serious apparent injustice to the applicant and weakening of the Conference. {: #subdebate-46-52-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. ) The selection of staff for the NAC secretariat is a matter for the NAC itself. 2. 1 understand that a letter asking **Mr Anderson** to telephone **Mr McNamara** about interview arrangements was sent to him on 2 1 July 1 978. No response was received to this letter. 3. See answer to (2) above. {:#subdebate-46-53} #### Damming of Rivers: Preservation of Aboriginal Interests (Question No. 2133) {: #subdebate-46-53-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to objections to proposals to dam the Dogger and Gregory Gorges on the Fortescue River and alternative proposals to dam the Robe River and upper reaches of the Fortescue or Millstream Rivers, Queensland. 1. What steps have been taken to preserve Aboriginal interests as expressed in bush meetings among IS to 20 different dialect groups during 1976. {: #subdebate-46-53-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. I attended a bush meeting in August 1 976 when proposals to dam the Docker and Gregory Gorges on the Fortescue River in Western Australia were discussed with State officials. 1. Since this meeting, a detailed study of the area has been made by officers attached to the Western Australian Museum. Their findings are contained in a report 'Aboriginal Sites on the Fortescue River: Portland River to Millstream', completed in March 1978. The principal recommendation is that some 38 sites be reserved and vested in the Aboriginal Lands Trust of Western Australia. The report is still under consideration by the State Government. {:#subdebate-46-54} #### Enforcement of Taxation Laws (Question No. 2155) {: #subdebate-46-54-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the *National Times* for the week ending 1 July 1978, concerning a **Mr Brian** Maher described in the article as a scourge of the tax man; if so, in view of this taxpayer's alleged activities and the effect of those activities on Government revenue, has he or the Commissioner for Taxation given consideration to prosecuting **Mr Maher** under section 5 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act for aiding and abetting offences against the Income Tax Assessment Act or under section 86 of the Crimes Act for conspiracy to commit an offence or to prevent or defeat the execution or enforcement of the tax legislation. 1. Is he satisfied that the Commissioner for Taxation is doing everything possible to ensure that **Mr Maher,** as well as his clients, are paying their fair share of the tax burden. {: #subdebate-46-54-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member 's question is as follows: >I thank the honourable member for Hawker for drawing my attention to the newspaper article to which he referred. > >Because of the secrecy provisions of the income tax law, the Commissioner of Taxation is unable to divulge any information relating to the affairs of **Mr Maher** or any other person. > >The Commissioner informed me, however, that all available administrative means are used to enforce the taxation laws. {:#subdebate-46-55} #### United States Production Protection Program (Question No. 2166) {: #subdebate-46-55-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to say what are the details of the Production Protection Program recently put to Congress by the United States Department of Agriculture to replace the existing disaster relief and crop insurance programs. 1. If so, what progress has it made. 2. Is he also able to say what are the details of the existing program. {: #subdebate-46-55-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The intention of the proposed legislation is to consolidate and streamline existing federal government crop insurance and disaster programs into a new, voluntary scheme and to overcome some of the inadequacies of the existing programs. The anticipated costs to the Government of the proposed scheme, for claims and administrative expenses, are difficult to determine but estimates range from $US542m to $US 1 . 1 billion annually. 1. Current information is that the Bill has been introduced to Congress but is not expected to be dealt with until next year's Congressional session. 2. Existing legislation provides for a complex set of arrangements relating to crop insurance and disaster protection for farmers. These arrangements include the provision of extended loan programs for farmers, emergency compensation payments for crops affected by natural hazards or where plantings are prevented or yields reduced as a result of hazards, and the provision of crop insurance through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. The arrangements have commonly been criticised for their inequalities which result in some farmers, depending on their location and the crops grown, qualifying for assistance while others are considered ineligible. It is anticipated that these inequalities will be eliminated with the introduction of the new program. Use of PVC Preparations as Food Containers (Question No. 2171) {: #subdebate-46-55-s2 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 September1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the dioxin levels of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) solutions used in wrapping and container laminating for food applications. 1. What levels are used to determine acceptable health standards and how frequently are checks carried out on finished anicles to ensure those standards are being met. {: #subdebate-46-55-s3 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The term dioxin refers to a group of substances and not one specific chemical compound. Recent articles in the lay press, however, have used it as a synonym for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para dioxin which is also commonly known as TCDD. This substance is not used in the production of polyvinylchloride nor does it occur as a contaminant or by-product during the process of manufacture. {:#subdebate-46-56} #### Kimberley Land Council (Question No. 2182) {: #subdebate-46-56-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 September 1978: >What Government support has been agreed to for the Kimberley Land Council. {: #subdebate-46-56-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Kimberley Land Council has not applied for financial assistance and no grant by my Department has been approved. DrugB-15 (Question No. 2352) {: #subdebate-46-56-s2 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 September1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the so-called wonder drug B-15, which is supposedly a cure for alcoholism, hepatitis, heart disease, diabetes, schizophrenia, glaucoma and various allergies, and can allegedly act as a youth potion. 1. If so, have investigations been made into the effectiveness of B-15. 2. Is the drug banned in Australia. 3. If not, have permits been granted for the importation of any of the drug into Australia. {: #subdebate-46-56-s3 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The Company promoting this product has been requested to provide data to my Department to establish its quality, safety and efficacy. This has not been forthcoming and consequently no assessment has been made of the effectiveness of so-called B-15. Analyses of samples of the material obtained by my Department have revealed it to be of varying composition. I might add that there is officially no vitamin B-15. 2. This drug has not been approved for general marketing for humans in Australia. 3. In line with current department policy, permits have been granted to allow importation by private individuals for their personal use on presentation of a doctor's prescription to ensure adequate supervision of treatment and compliance with State legal requirements. The persons are informed individually that, in the absence of relevant scientific data, the Department can give no guarantee of the quality, safety and efficacy of the drug. {:#subdebate-46-57} #### Ethnic Liaison Officer Scheme: Assessments (Question No. 1706) {: #subdebate-46-57-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on1 5 August1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) Which departments and authorities have responded to the Public Service Board request for interim assessments of the impact of their programs on migrants and ethnic communities. 1. Were these interim assessments due by 31 July1978. {: #subdebate-46-57-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) The Public Service Board requested the following 33 Departments and Authorities to provide a report on their implementation of the Ethnic Liaison Officer scheme and all have provided the interim assessments required: Department of Aboriginal Affairs; Department of Administrative Services; Attorney-General's Department; Australian Bureau of Statistics; Australian Electoral Office; Australian Taxation Office; Department of Business and Consumer Affairs; Department of the Capital Territory; Department of Construction; Department of Defence; Department of Education; Department of Employment and Industrial Relations; Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development; Department of Finance; Department of Foreign Affairs; Department of Health; Department of Home Affairs; Department of Industry and Commerce; National Capital Development Commission; Department of National Development; Department of the Northern Territory; Postal and Telecommunications Department; Department of Primary Industry; Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; Department of Productivity; Public Service Board; Department of Science; Department of Social Security; Department of Special Trade Representations; Department of Trade and Resources; Department of Transport; the Treasury; Departmentof Veterans' Affairs. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. {:#subdebate-46-58} #### Australian Encephalitis (Question No. 2168) {: #subdebate-46-58-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) What research is being conducted in Australia into the cause and transmission of Australian Arbo Encephalitis, of treatment procedures and of a possible vaccine. 1. Which of this research is being sponsored by (a) the Commonwealth and ( b ) each of the States. 2. What arrangements exist for (a) co-operative Commonwealth-State discussions (b) early warning systems and (c) an official announcement procedure for this disease. 3. What are the responsibilities of State governments in respect of this disease. 4. In some States, is their ability to efficiently carry out these responsibilities reduced by divided departmental authority. 5. Which States have a single or co-ordinated authority to more effectively administer their responsibility with this disease. {: #subdebate-46-58-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Research in Australia is being conducted into the insect vectors of Australian Encephalitis, into animal and bird reservoirs of the disease, the causative virus and other closely related viruses, and into the possible effect of weather patterns on the incidence of the disease. Treatment procedures rely in the main on skilled nursing and facilities ibr intensive care, there being no specific antibiotic effective against the virus concerned. Since the ecosystem(s) involved differ from those existing in countries such as Japan where vaccines are used, effective application of a vaccine in this country is doubtful. There is no defined animal reservoir which might be vaccinated as is done elsewhere, and this whole matter is still under active consideration by the Expert Working Group on Australian Encephalitis of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Naturally a close watch is kept on research into vaccines being undertaken overseas. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Commonwealth contributes towards all the aspects of research mentioned above as being in progress in Australia. In addition, contributions are made by Western Australia and Queensland to specific research projects; Victoria contributes to field studies being undertaken within that State. 1. (a) Arrangements exist for continual co-operative Commonwealth-State liaison both on an informal basis and through the National Health and Medical Research Council's Working Party on Australian Encephalitis, which last met on September 27 this year. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. An early warning system is maintained mainly in the form of regular serological studies on sentinel chickens, other birds and animals. Studies on human sera are also undertaken as part of the overall watch on a possible recrudescence of the disease. 1. Normal arrangements for media release by appropriate Ministers apply, and the advice of the Working Party is valuable in framing such announcements. 2. The States are basically responsible for all health services within their areas of jurisdiction. However, cooperative State/Commonwealth arrangements exist for a coordinated approach to the prevention and control of this disease on a dollar for dollar cost-shared basis. 3. Administrative arrangements concerning Departmental responsibilities in the States are naturally the responsibility of individual States, however I am unaware that efficient control is jeopardised in any area. I should point out as mentioned in (3) above, that close co-operation and communication exists between the Commonwealth and the States with regard to control measures. 4. The States principally concerned, i.e. Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have had, for some time, or have recently established, single or co-ordinated health authorities. I understand that communication between these health authorities and other organisations necessarily involved in any control such as State Departments of Agriculture are on an effective basis. Depositions in Conspiracy Case {: #subdebate-46-58-s2 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- On 16 March 1978 the honourable member for Phillip **(Mr Birney)** asked the following question without notice: >I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether depositions relating to a conspiracy case in the Special Federal Court in Sydney late last year involving a **Mrs Patricia** Moylan were removed from that Court without the knowledge or approval of the presiding magistrate? Who took this action and did it occur the day after the same depositions were unsuccessfully sought by counsel representing a **Mr Frank** Christopher Lawrence in similar proceedings in another court? Further, were both cases related to the importation of cannabis into Australia? The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >I am informed that the events referred to by the honourable member were as follows- > >On 19 October 1977, the transcript of committal proceedings in progress against **Mrs P.** M. Moylan was re- - moved from the Office of the Clerk of Petty Sessions, Phillip Street, Sydney, on a written direction from the Under-Secretary of Justice of New South Wales, who is the superior officer of the Clerk. That direction ordered the Clerk to make the transcript available to a member of the staff of the New South Wales Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking and the Clerk duly acted in accordance with that direction. > >The direction to the Clerk to make the transcript available was brought to the notice of the Magistrate presiding over the committal proceedings as soon as possible on 19 October 1977. The Magistrate adjourned the court to make enquiries. > >On 20 October 1977 the Magistrate, on resumption of the proceedings, informed the court that he had been told by the Department of Justice that the transcript would be returned that same morning, together with all copies. The Magistrate also said that he had been given an undertaking that no other copies had been made, that no notes had been taken as to the identity of witnesses or the value of evidence given, and that no further attempts would be made to obtain the transcript without the consent of the Commonwealth authorities. He also stated that he had been assured that the transcript had been sought only for use of the New South Wales Royal Commission. > >The removal of the transcript did occur on the day after Counsel appearing for **Mr F.** C. Lawrence in a bail application before other sittings of the court sought access to the transcript of the proceedings against **Mrs Moylan.** That request was refused. > >The proceedings against **Mrs Moylan** and against **Mr Lawrence** both related to charges of conspiracy concerning the importation of cannabis into Australia. **Mrs Moylan** and **Mr Lawrence** were convicted on those charges.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 October 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19781010_reps_31_hor111/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant