House of Representatives
11 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 1683

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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 automaticaly 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 under-signed Petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that trustworthiness of Governments should at all times be above question.

And to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardship 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 Lynch, Mr Bradfield, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Barry Jones, Mr Killen, Mr West and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

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 of such pornographic child-abuse 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 pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bradfield, Dr Edwards, Mr Ellicott, Mr Charles Jones and Mr McLean.

Petitions received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

That because 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, et cetera.
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staffof 3 1 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 pan 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 Kevin Cairns, Mr Dobie, Mr Fife, Mr Peter Johnson and Mr Ruddock.

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 unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Lynch, Mr Bourchier and Mr Stewart.

Petitions received.

Education

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

That as parents of children in government schools we maintain that it is the responsibility of governments to provide and maintain a public system of education of the highest standard open to all.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the members of this house assembled ensure that the Commonwealth Government maintain a broadly representative Australian Schools Commission to determine; - National priorities in education - strategies and allocation of funds to ensure equality of educational opponunity for all children - allocation of funds for the continued improvement of public systems of education through General Recurrent and Capital Grants to Government school systems and Special Purpose Programs.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bradfield and Dr Edwards.

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 artifically 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 Dr Klugman and Mr Les McMahon.

Petitions received.

Wine and Grape Growing Industry

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 the recent Budget increase in excise on spirits would have grave consequences for the wine industry in South Australia, because it will curtail the sale of Brandy, because it will seriously affect the livelihood of grape-growers and employees of wineries, because it will have a severe depressive effect on wineries and associated industries.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that

The Federal Government withdraws this increase in excise on spirits, especially Brandy, so that the wine and grapegrowing industry in South Australia is not disadvantaged.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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 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 permission be given- and not again withdrawn- for mining to commence immediately. by Mr Calder.

Petition 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 the decision of the Australian Government to depart from its 1975 election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be inceased twice-yearly in line with increases in the C.P.I., will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by this fact to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decision, and to determine-

That pensions will be increased twice yearly in line with rises in the C.P.I, as promised by the prime minister in 1 975 policy speech.

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

Petition received.

Aged Persons Accommodation

To: The Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

  1. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-
  2. That surveys reveal a substantial percentage of adults over the age of 55 years in the LoftusEngadineHeathcote and Waterfall areas of the Hughes electorate, are in urgent need of special housing and nursing home accommodation.
  3. That many families in the area are experiencing difficulty 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.
  4. That this problem is aggravated by this area’s geographical and public transport isolation from the rest of the Sutherland Shire.
  5. That Government subsidised nursing homes in other parts of the Hughes and Cook electorate have long waiting-lists and in fact, have closed their lists to further inquirers.

Your petitioners most humble 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 N.S. W.
  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.

The Budget

To the Honorable 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 Les Johnson.

Petition received.

Health Insurance

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of NSW respectfully showeth that the recent changes to the Health Insurance Act and proposed cuts in funding to health and welfare services discriminates against the middle and low income earners of Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1 Bulk billing be restored for all patients. 2 That the health fund rebate be restored to 85 per cent. 3 That doctors not be made responsible for determining which of their patients is on sufficentiy low income to warrant bulk billing. 4 That the federal government fully fund the community health program. 5 That hospitals and other health and welfare institutions and organisations be federally funded at a level equal to that of their 1977-78 funds, taking inflation into account. 6 That health funds not be allowed “optional deductibles”, that is, to remove from their schedule of benefits any item which they do not wish to insure against.

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

Petition received.

Medibank

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

That we the undersigned employed at Colgate Palmolive Pty. Ltd., Balmain, Sydney, N.S.W., hereby express our disgust at the negative document called the 1978 Budget.

We also call for Medibank to be reinstated in its original form.

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

Petition received.

South Australian Country Rail Services

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:

  1. That any downgrading or closures of Country Rail Services in South Australia would have grave consequences for the Railway Industry, Primary Industry, Individual Country Communities and the State as a whole and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the Federal Minister for Transport takes the necessary action to maintain all existing services.
  2. That continued and increased Public Subsidy is fully justified in the long term National Interest.

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

Petition received.

page 1685

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1685

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I refer to an answer given by him yesterday in which he said that basically whatever information was available to his Government in relation to matters concerning Maralinga had been available to the previous Labor Government. By way of preface I point out to the right honourable gentleman that last night I contacted former Prime Minister Whitlam and two former Ministers who served in the Defence portfolio- Mr Barnard and Mr Morrison. Mr Whitlam could not recall any information reaching him on plutonium buried at Maralinga and Mr Morrison told me that certainly nothing on this matter had ever come to him. Mr Barnard said that to the best of his recollection he had been informed that there was radioactivity at Maralinga as a consequence of nuclear tests but he is quite certain -

Mr Hodgman:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition is giving information and secondly, it is hearsay.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As to the first point, the Leader of the Opposition is giving information but I extend privilege to the Leader of the Opposition to proceed with his question. As to the point about hearsay, this is a legal concept and not a parliamentary concept.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The honourable member is trying to make this place too difficult to function. To conclude where I left off, Mr Barnard said that he is quite certain that he was told nothing at any time about the burial of plutonium. In view of this, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will support the unsubstantiated assertion he made yesterday by making available to me for my personal study whatever papers and documents relating to this matter the Prime Minister claims were available to the Whitlam Government.

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

– If I may presume to answer this question on behalf of my right honourable friend, the answer to the substantive part of the question is yes. But may I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the principal report dealing with what is buried at Maralinga is a report known as the Pearce report? That report was given to the Government in 1968. It has a British classification on it. It is a report that was prepared following what is compendiously described as a clean-up at Maralinga. The operation was known as Operation Brumby. The report is there and I can assure the honourable gentleman- I do this in no conflictual state at all- that the report has been available for government since 1968 to study. I would be only too happy to make that report available to the honourable gentleman.

Mr Hayden:

– In other words the existence of it was made known to Whitlam, Barnard and Morrison?

Mr KILLEN:

– I appreciate the seriousness of my honourable friend ‘s question. I will be seeking, if it meets the convenience and agreement of the House, to make a statement on this matter later this afternoon- I understand there are one or two other matters to be dealt with- and then I will be tracing the history. When the honourable member for Maribyrnong was Minister for the Environment and Conservation it is a matter of record that he considered recommendations from a body known as AIRAC- the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council- and gave his approval with respect to those recommendations. For myself, I would find it absolutely unbelievable that a Minister so circumstanced as the honourable member for Maribyrnong- that is, the Minister with the ministerial responsibility at the time- would have accepted recommendations without having sent for the entire file.

page 1686

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Mr HODGMAN:

-Has the Minister for Defence seen the assertion in the Australia Financial Review that he suggested to Parliament yesterday that there might be no need to do anything about the radioactive waste buried at Maralinga other than to upgrade the police guard? As I did not hear the Minister say anything like this yesterday and a check of Hansard this morning has confirmed my recollection, I ask the Minister whether there is any truth in this report.

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– It was a matter of astonishment and dismay to me to read in this mornings Australian Financial Review a report which was prepared by one of its employees- I place emphasis on the word ‘employees’- and which said:

The Defence Minister, Mr Killen, who only two weeks ago obtained Cabinet acceptance of the view that action had to be taken, suggested to Parliament yesterday that there might be no need to do anything other than to upgrade the police guard.

I said no such thing and I suggested no such thing. I leave it to the sense of fairness and reason of this House to determine whether anything can be read into what I said yesterday that would enable that inference or that conclusion to be drawn. I did not mention the word ‘police’. Honourable members will find in a week’s time a report which will state: ‘As was reported in the Australian Financial Review, Killen said nothing else other than to upgrade the police guard’. As I said before- and I repeat it- this is a pernicious, wicked and odious technique. It has long been practiced by this man. I invite the editor of this newspaper to submit what I said in this House yesterday to any five editors throughout Australia to enable them to judge whether that is a fair, reasonable and accurate report. I do not know whether his actions represent dishonesty or incompetence but, for my part, I believe that the person concerned would not be capable of reporting accurately a minute’s silence.

page 1687

QUESTION

HEALTH: DIVULGING OF INCOME TO GENERAL PRACTITIONERS

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Prime Minister aware that as from 1 November hundreds of thousands of middle income earners and lower income families will have to suffer the humiliation of divulging to their local general practitioner their financial standing in order that the local practitioner can determine whether these people are socially disadvantaged? Is the Prime Minister prepared to give the Parliament and the people of Australia the same information that these hundreds of thousands of families will have to give to their local doctor? Is he prepared to tell us his total income for the year 1977-78 and how much tax he paid on that income?

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

-The honourable gentleman draws analogies which have no relevance whatsoever. He seeks to suggest that a Budget proposal in relation to changes to Medibank will cause difficulty and hardship for a large number of Australians. I do not believe that this is so. I believe that general practitioners have a very close knowledge and understanding of the circumstances of disadvantaged people within their communities. I would add that general practitioners have acted in this way not just in recent times but for generations. It is well known that over a long period of public service before the days of medical insurance general practitioners did not always charge the full cost for the services they rendered to people who were less well-off in their communities. If doctors could distinguish such people in those times without any onerous conditions attaching, I would certainly believe and hope that they could distinguish such citizens in the present circumstances in which the Commonwealth, through its approach to medical care for disadvantaged people in the Australian community, will make sure that such people get full medical cover without unreasonable burden being placed upon them. Doctors will do this in the same way that they have denned and distinguished between such people over a long period of medical practice. Doctors know the real circumstances of the disadvantaged people in their own areas.

Mr Young:

– Most doctors these days make the patients pay cash.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will remain silent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I am quite certain that this will continue to occur. There is nothing new to be said in relation to the other matter that the honourable gentleman raised. It is well known that Sir Nigel Bowen is conducting an inquiry into these matters to see whether it is appropriate for there to be some kind of declaration to be made in respect of the incomes of members of Parliament and perhaps other people also. The honourable gentleman knows quite well that if he can succeed in having the assets of a particular person disclosed, he can then move on to another person, under the present circumstances, merely by the process of asking questions.

Mr Young:

– Why don’t you tell us what we want to know?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I would like to suggest that one person who has disclosed his assets in this Parliament -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Port Adelaide has asked his question. I have asked him to refrain from interjecting previously and I do so now. The honourable member will remain silent. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I suggest that the very fact that one person has disclosed to the media part of his assets has not resolved the question about his own particular status. Again I have no criticism of that. I just make the point that disclosure of that kind does not end the questioning from persons with suspicious minds. The fact that a certain person has disclosed this information would lead to the possibility of many more questions than would have been asked had he not made any disclosure at all.

page 1687

QUESTION

TRADE FIGURES

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Deputy Prime Minister concerned about trade figures which were released yesterday and their implication in particular for the future of the Australian economy? Can he indicate what action the Government can take in an effort to redress this situation?

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

– I think that everybody in this House would be aware of the importance of maintaining a strong balance of payments situation. None of us can treat this matter lightly, because the welfare and well-being of this nation depend very much on sustaining a strong export performance. A major responsibility of my portfolio is to foster and encourage the development of more exports from Australia. Over the past year the Government has announced the upgrading of the market development grants scheme to encourage people to sell. We have also introduced the market expansion grants scheme, which is another means of giving incentive to people to find more markets. We have established the Overseas Project Development Corporation, which will give construction, consulting and other companies the chance to perform overseas. Of course, one of the important roles of my Department is to keep a close eye on the prices that are being obtained for commodities sold overseas to see that we receive a proper and appropriate price for commodities we might sell.

Another area of importance in my Department is the encouragement of investment in resources, particularly resources which are export oriented. In developing those resources we want to see the maximum amount of processing carried on here so that we get the added value of Australian contribution to the upgrading of those materials. We have developed committees in conjunction with the States to see that this matter is thoroughly examined. Australia participates in a joint study group with Japan to see how more processing might be done here. Yesterday, in answer to a question, I mentioned that Canada was moving ahead with uranium and that it had a number of projects that would be developed. In fact I am told that within the next five to six years the exports of uranium from Canada will double. This means that Canada will be able to earn hundreds of millions of dollars worth of extra overseas currency. I only hope that it will not be too long before Australia will be able to start sharing some of the benefits from the development of the vast uranium deposits we have in this country. At a time of business stagnation or slackness and a high degree of unemployment it is unbelievable that people should be resisting the development of uranium, which can bring so many benefits to this country as well as to other countries around the world. If there were any doubts left about the uranium question I could understand people having qualms, but the uranium question has been subject to all types of examination not only in this country but also in other countries and everybody has accepted that under controlled and regulated circumstances uranium development should go ahead. I only hope that with Australia having such rich deposits of uranium the whole community might soon be able to gain the benefit of the development of this commodity.

page 1688

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION STAFF

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for Health remember saying that the Government’s new health insurance proposals will lead to excess staff at the Health Insurance Commission and promising that government departments and private health funds would be asked to employ the surplus staff? Is he aware that the funds in New South Wales have allegedly placed a black ban on all Health Insurance Commission employees who have previously worked for private funds? Will he try to prevent such discrimination against persons who have generally given good service to a government authority?

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

-The only advice that I have had has been from the honourable member for Prospect. I have asked him to supply me with any evidence that might come into his possession which suggests that such black banning is taking place. So far no evidence has come to me on the issue. However, I did receive an assurance from the representatives of the health insurance funds that they would do everything in their power to take staff that was surplus to the requirements of the Health Insurance Commission in cases where they had vacancies as a result of the changes that would occur to the health insurance system in Australia following the modifications to come into effect on 1 November. I will, however, discuss the matter with the Executive Director of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia. I will report that allegations have been made of this sort of action being taken by some funds, I presume, in New South Wales. I would be surprised if the funds adopted this attitude, in view of the assurances they gave me personally at the meeting that took place soon after the Budget was introduced. If any member of the House has any evidence of such black banning I would be very grateful if he gave it to me.

page 1688

QUESTION

FRUIT CANNING INDUSTRY

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Trade and Resources aware that European Economic Community fruit processors are being paid subsidies which will enable them to compete on better terms with imported canned fruit? What steps is the Government taking to protect the interests of the Australian fruit canning industry in this important export market? Furthermore, with regard to canned fruit, can the Minister advise whether he has yet received any response from the Canadian Government as a result of his efforts to persuade that Government not to eliminate our tariff preference on canned fruit going to that market?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I am aware that from 1 July this year the European Economic Community introduced a canned fruit production subsidy. That subsidy affects mainly our exports of peaches which make up 40 per cent of our canned fruit sales to the EEC. The actual subsidy being offered is approximately $6 a carton, which represents about 40 per cent of the landed cost for us to put canned peaches into the EEC. In fact, for an EEC canner to be able to qualify for the subsidy he has to guarantee producers in the EEC $325 a tonne. That compares with $170 a tonne in Australia. So we can see the vast difference in the cost of production between Australia and the EEC and we can see the relative efficiency of the two countries. But with that huge subsidy the EEC is undercutting Australian sales and is making it difficult for us to maintain the share of the market which we have traditionally had for very many years.

The subsidy is not the only matter causing us a great deal of concern. Import duties are imposed, averaging 24 per cent. An additional levy is made for the sugar content. There are licensing arrangements involved and there is the matter of import deposits. All of these matters make it more and more difficult for us to maintain our normal volume of trading in canned fruit to the EEC area. The Minister for Special Trade Representations will shortly be in Brussels making representations on our behalf. Although the arrangements have not been finalised, most probably I will be participating in further multilateral trade negotiations later this year. One of the areas of very great concern is the fact that we want to see at least the maintenance of our present trading position rather than any restrictions being placed on it.

As far as Canada is concerned, that Government has received a report which suggests that it ought to eliminate the tariff preferences which exist between Australia and Canada. I have been vigorously trying to persuade the Canadians that the special tariff preference arrangements which exist between our two countries should be maintained. These arrangements are very important to Australia for the export of sugar and canned fruit. It is very important for Canada to be able to maintain market penetration into Australia of chemicals and manufactured goods. At the moment I am waiting for a final response on this matter. I am hoping that the Canadian Government will give consideration to maintaining the status quo which has existed for a number of years.

page 1689

QUESTION

MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Mr BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the Confederation of Australian Industry expressing concern that Australia’s negotiating position at the Multilateral Trade Negotiations has been framed without any information being made available to industry of the detailed options and consequences? Did the Confederation also state its concern that agreement may be reached particularly in relation to a 40 per cent tariff reduction without regard to the prior views of Austraiian industry or without regard to the consequences for industry generally? Does the Prime Minister intend giving Australian industry any opportunity to comment in an informed way on prospective MTN agreements before any such agreements are reached?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– A special industry committee has been formed on the MTN which has been operating for a number of years. It has been looking at all the relevant matters relating to the MTN round of negotiations. A complex series of matters has to be examined, not only the levels of tariff protection but also the various forms of non-tariff barriers that are operating, and the various codes that we are trying to introduce so as to put a little more order and discipline into international marketing arrangements. There have been certain levels of consultation. Letters have been sent out to industry people. If there is any particular group that wants to be better informed as to the overall situation I shall be happy to look at its requests and I shall have further examined the particular complaint that the honourable member makes.

page 1689

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr BUNGEY:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Treasurer’s attention been drawn to reports that the Government’s Budget deficit for the first quarter of this financial year is higher than for the corresponding period of last year? I therefore ask the Treasurer whether the latest figures indicate any significant departure from the estimated deficit given in his recent Budget Speech.

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

– My attention has been drawn to those reports. The short answer to the second part of the honourable member’s question is no. The Budget deficit for the first three months of this financial year is $2,50 lm and it is to be expected that in the normal pattern of seasonal developments that will get greater until later on in the financial year when of course it will reduce. There are a number of special reasons why the deficit appears a little larger in the first three months than on a superficial examination would be consistent with the Budget estimates. For example, the effect on the revenue side of the taxation increases does not become apparent until 1 November when increased deductions through the pay-as-you-earn system will commence. The increased collections of customs and excise have not been fully reflected. In addition, there have been a number of areas where payments to schools and tertiary institutions have boosted outlays simply because of the timing of those payments occurring in the first three months.

There has been the payment in full of the tax sharing entitlements of local government authorities under the tax sharing arrangements in the first quarter whereas in the same quarter in 1977-78 some $60m of those entitlements was not paid until after that quarter. Because of the changed administrative arrangements for the Northern Territory there has been a bunching effect so far as payments to the Northern Territory are concerned during the first three months. Overall, in respect of those reports, I would say that to read into the figures for the first three months significant evidence that there has been a substantial departure from the Budget estimates is quite erroneous and quite misleading. I believe that the figures produced to date do not support those suggestions.

page 1690

QUESTION

STUDY LEAVE CONDITIONS

Mr FRY:

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer to possible changes in study leave conditions which pose a threat to the academic standards of Australian universities. Has the Government received the second report of the Tertiary Education Commission on study leave? Does the Government intend to table the report and allow some discussion of it? When does the Prime Minister intend to make a statement on the issue?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The matter is currently under examination by the Government. There have been some early discussions in relation to it. When the Government’s decisions are made the Minister for Education will be making a statement in relation to the matter. I think it ought to be pointed out that there has been a real degree of generosity in some of the study leave arrangements made by some institutions around Australia. Study leave has not been restricted merely to those who need some relief from academic duties and studies during an academic year. It has been extended to administrators, and if study leave is necessary one year in seven for administrators in universities, why would it not be necessary for administrators in other walks of life? I think it has been quite right to examine these provisions which overall, having in mind the additional staff numbers required, cost about $40m a year. I know that the direct costs are very much less than that- the costs of fares and other things- but the fact that institutions have to carry a much larger number of staff to cater for the study leave provisions costs a total of about $40m a year.

Another way of looking at it is that if study leave were not being undertaken to the same extent, the same number of staff would be able to look after the needs of a much larger number of students. I do not think that this is an entirely simple question, and the Government will be looking at it having in mind the best needs of the students of Australian universities and colleges of advanced education. It will certainly want to preserve academic standards, but there must be a question mark on whether the generosity of the present arrangements is entirely necessary for the achievement of that. To take one simple example, I think the suggestion that people must travel overseas to a foreign university to study and to live and work within its environment for a year or two is not necessarily appropriate in all circumstances in Australia in 1978 and beyond. There are a number of very good universities in this country and I should have thought that it would be just as appropriate for study leave to be taken by somebody from a Melbourne university in another university in Australia. So a number of matters are not unrelated to this issue.

page 1690

QUESTION

RANGER AGREEMENT: NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL

Mr RUDDOCK:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs keeping in touch with the Northern Land Council concerning implementation of procedures for obtaining a decision on the proposed Ranger agreement? What is the current position?

Mr VINER:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I am keeping in touch with the Northern Land Council to follow what is happening in carrying out the procedures of the land rights legislation with regard to the proposed Ranger agreement. The House will recall that, following litigation, it was a term of settlement that there would be consultation with various communities and with the traditional owners to determine which communities are affected and require to be consulted under the legislation. A meeting has been going on at Oenpelli in the uranium province area over the last couple of days. I expect to receive a report tonight and will be in a position to advise the House more completely tomorrow on the result of that meeting. That is not to say that there will be a final decision tomorrow or within the next few days on whether the Ranger agreement will be agreed to by the NLC.

However, it may be of some interest to the House to know that not only have I been keeping in contact with the Northern Land Council but also that last Friday I found that a Mr Muller travelled to Darwin and had some discussions with the Northern Land Council. When I inquired about who Mr Muller was I found that he was employed as an electorate assistant by the honourable member for Reid. I found also on further investigation that Mr Muller is currently acting in a new position of assistant private secretary to the honourable member and that that position was approved recently by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Muller is therefore entitled to travel at government expense on the business of the honourable member for Reid. Honourable members will recall that when I went to Darwin late in September at the time of the litigation I discovered that there was a web of intrigue involving the Labor Party spreading throughout Arnhem Land. Since then further evidence has been coming to hand as to just how far the Labor Party is involved in pursuing its own political interests and not the interests of the Aboriginals.

Not only has Mr Muller been involved recently, but also I ought to inform the House just what he was on about. He suggested to the Northern Land Council that what it ought to do was to delay as long as possible the discussions that are now going on within Aboriginal communities. Mr Muller said that the Labor Party is going pretty well at the moment- in its eyes- and that there will be an election in 18 months and if negotiations can be strung out over those 18 months there will be a Labor government and, of course, it would not allow uranium mining to continue. That is blatant action of a vested nature and of a political kind by the Australian Labor Party. It is designed not only to frustrate the negotiations that have been carried out with regard to the Ranger mining but also to destroy the credibility of the Northern Land Council. We know also that the Labor Party inspired a move to bring down the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Galarrwuy Yunupingu. I have no hesitation in expressing my complete confidence in the capacity and the credibility of Mr Yunupingu in seeking to fulfil his statutory responsibilities and those of the Northern Land Council under the land rights legislation.

But events involving the Labor Party do not stop at Mr Muller. I have also discovered that in the last day or so Mr Bob Collins, the Labor

Party member for Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory Assembly, was instrumental in organising a charter plane to take people to Goulburn Island for a rally, so it was called, to meet Mr Yunupingu.

Mr Young:

– Would you rather be wrapped up in shonky land deals or undertakers’ businesses?

Mr VINER:

-So I think the web of intrigue is becoming more apparent. As the days go by, the honourable member for Port Adelaide might wish to know, we will gather more and more evidence of the involvement of the Labor Party, of its attempts to destroy the Northern Land Council and the credibility of its Chairman and hence of its attempts to frustrate the Ranger negotiations.

page 1691

QUESTION

MEDIBANK STAFF

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Is the Minister for Health aware of the acute and growing concern of Health Insurance Commission employees about their future following the Budget statements- statements now almost two months old- on Medibank? Will the Minister make a detailed statement on the employment prospects of the staff of Medibank? Will the Minister give an unqualified assurance that no staff member currently employed by Medibank will be unemployed or under-employed after 1 November as a result of the Government’s Budget decision concerning Medibank?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I am aware that there is concern amongst members of the staff of the Health Insurance Commission about their future employment. I made it perfectly clear, in making the statement, that there would be staff- the number is yet to be determined- that would be surplus to the requirements of the Health Insurance Commission some time after 1 November. As a consequence of our concern, a very close examination is being undertaken by the Health Insurance Commission, the Department of Health and the Public Service Board of the implications of the new arrangements that will apply.

I have met the staff associations and have had a lengthy conference with them. The staffing requirements of the Department of Health for certain functions that will go across from the Health Insurance Commission to the Department of Health for the processing of bulk-billed claims for pensioners and disadvantaged people have not yet been finalised. It is expected that offers of employment will be made to a significant number of members of the staff of the Health Insurance Commission in the very near future. I have asked the Health Insurance Commission and the Department of Health to try to expedite their discussions with the Public Service Board so that we can clarify the position of a great number of staff members who, at present, are not quite sure whether they are going to be unemployed. Undoubtedly a number of processing centres will cease to function some time in the New Year. We also have had discussions with the Public Service Board to ensure that where redeployment is possible within the Public Service that will be done. As I indicated earlier, I have had discussions with the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia to try to ensure that where there are vacancies in the funds it should attempt to make every effort to employ those who are surplus to the requirements of the Health Insurance Commission as a result of the new arrangements as from 1 November. I cannot give any guarantee whatsoever that there will be no unemployed people as a result of the changes from 1 November. I have made it very clear that there will be surplus staff after 1 November.

page 1692

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY INQUIRY

Mr THOMSON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware of Press reports referring to an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the sugar industry? Can the Minister inform the House of the nature of the inquiry into the sugar industry? Is there a statutory requirement for a draft report? Do Press reports referring to the need for the issue of a draft report conflict with the views of people in the industry?

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

-It is true that the problem of establishing a fair and adequate domestic price for sugar has been a matter of some controversy over the last few years. This Government has given very real sympathy to the requests of the industry, particularly since export prices have fallen. The problem of the sugar industry in finding in the domestic market a price that helps to offset the ever escalating costs which affect the industry has become far more serious. It is equally true that there are three principal components of the sugar industry. When we talk about a domestic price we are essentially thinking of the end price, but the industry is divided into those who are cane growers, those who are sugar millers and, of course, the two sugar refiners. It was felt, because of the difficulties in adequately establishing cost movements as they affected the cane growers particularly, that a form of inquiry was necessary. This inquiry, however, is not one which has been initiated in the normal course. It comes rather because of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement which is an agreement negotiated between the Government of Queensland, which in fact owns all the sugar in Australia, and the Commonwealth Government. Under that Agreement there is an obligation for the Commonwealth and the Queensland Government to have negotiations whenever the domestic price of sugar is to be determined.

It was out of that Agreement that it was felt that the IAC was the most appropriate body to undertake an inquiry into the sugar industry. Belatedly there seems to have been a feeling by a number of people, particularly consumers, that a draft report was necessary. However, at the time of the initiation of the inquiry there was correspondence with the industry and with the Queensland Government- the owners of the sugar- by which it was established that there would be one report which would be a final report. It, of course, will be published and it will be available for comment at that time. The big percentage of sugar growers seems to be very much in favour of persisting in that course of action. I have in fact communicated with the industry and while it is true that some producers are in favour of a draft report they seem to be only a minority. The big percentage of cane growers is certainly in favour of the course that was initiated at the time the IAC inquiry was first commenced.

I would stress that this is not a normal IAC inquiry. It is an inquiry conducted under the auspices of the IAC in order to investigate all aspects relating to the production and costing of sugar production, milling and refining in Australia. It is not an inquiry in the normal sense but the IAC does provide a very suitable vehicle by which a broad based inquiry can be undertaken. As it is not a normal IAC inquiry I do not see anything abnormal in accepting the continued requests of the cane growers and the sugar industry that there should be only a final report.

page 1692

QUESTION

NUCLEAR EXPERIMENTATION AT MARALINGA

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. What was the purpose of nuclear experimentation at Maralinga in which discs of plutonium were explosively shattered? Were these tests directed to the development of highly advanced nuclear weapons? Were they carried out in breach of the spirit of an international ban on nuclear testing?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– This question or a question comparable with it was asked of me by the honourable member for Reid on or about 9 December 1976, and I replied to the honourable gentleman in a letter which I believe was dated either 3 or 4 February 1977. 1 will be advening to that question and that letter in the statement I propose to give later. I asked of the appropriate British authorities the explicit question which my honourable friend has asked me. I have received a categorical assurance that there was no breach of the moratorium at that time, that there was no nuclear explosion at that time and that the tests that were conducted were nuclear experimentations designed to determine what difficulties would have been postulated by, say, a nuclear weapon being involved in a fire or being subjected to severe stress. Beyond that I would say to the honourable gentleman that I think that this issue would be covered by me in particular when I make that statement; but I would seek to emphasise to the Leader of the Opposition and to the House that, as advised, there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom Government at the relevant time in any way breached the nuclear moratorium.

page 1693

QUESTION

RADIO STATION 3CR

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

-Did the Minister for Post and Telecommunications hear the radio program AM on 10 October in which it was reported that Peter McLullan, President of the Young Lawyers Association of Victoria, and Neil McLean, former national leader of the Australian student movement, broadcast from China to Thailand calling for continued communist revolution in Thailand? Is it true that these persons are commentators on radio station 3CR? Will the Minister take action against 3CR before we have protests on a government to government basis?

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

– I am not responsible for broadcasting matters in China or Thailand, and I did not in fact hear the broadcast to which the honourable member has referred. Matters relating to 3CR, which is a restricted commercial station, and to other commercial and public stations are matters for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and any complaints or queries relating to their performance can be made to the Tribunal. In fact the Tribunal has had a number of complaints in recent times about station 3CR. I have had complaints made to me and I have passed them on to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been examining those complaints, and as a first step it has arranged today discussions with 3CR about the complaints which have been made in particular by the Jewish community about the treatment of news relating to Israel and Jews here and overseas.

page 1693

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Why did the Prime Minister choose to give his evidence in secret to Mr Justice Bowen ‘s inquiry on pecuniary interests? In the spirit of the Bowen inquiry, will the Prime Minister declare now his sources of income, apart from official salary and allowances, and his tax payments? If the Prime Minister will not do this and will not even state in public his views on pecuniary interest declaration -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is arguing the issue.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– what is it he wishes to hide?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The matters that come out of the Bowen inquiry will be perfectly plain to all members of this House when the inquiry is completed, when its report is made, when the Government has made its decisions about it and when the report is published. At that time the view of the Government will become known. That is as it should be. I have a view that in government Ministers, and especially I, should not be in a position of having personal views that are unrelated to government views that might emerge on matters that can become ones of government policy. I believe that that is a very good reason for giving evidence to the Bowen inquiry in the way in which I did. Quite obviously, I have no knowledge of what that inquiry might report. Decisions that we will make about this matter in the end will be decisions of the Government; not decisions of the Prime Minister or any one Minister.

I have no wish to be on public record in a manner contrary to the view of the Government as the Government’s view will emerge in the proper course of conducting its affairs. It is a very old business for people to ask of a Minister or a Prime Minister, questions such as ‘What is your income? Where does it come from?’. I believe that these matters are not properly related to the conduct of the business and the affairs of this Parliament. I believe that there is an attempt to try to establish some air of suspicion where there ought to be none and to destroy the prospects for trust between parliament and the people, because it is not just a matter which concerns a government or an opposition; it is a matter which concerns parliament and the people. I have pointed out on a number of occasions that the question of trust between parliament and the people is fragile; it is not one that, for example, can be supported or improved by having a register, which might not be a full and complete one- a register which would lead to more questions being asked than might otherwise be the case.

I have said on many occasions that we will be examining the report of the Bowen inquiry. If, as a result of that report, requirements are placed upon members of parliament, I and everyone on this side of the House will fulfil those requirements. I can see no reason why the Opposition should attempt, first in my case and then, going down the line, in the case of some other Ministers, to establish by selective questioning of this kind a particular circumstance, and to reveal circumstances which to this point are the affairs of a person or a person ‘s family.

page 1694

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS TROOPS: NAMIBIA

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I direct to the Prime Minister a question which concerns the United Nations Security Council proposal to station 7,500 United Nations troops in Namibia during that country’s transition to independence. Is the Prime Minister aware that, given the size of Namibia, this would represent the greatest concentration of United Nations forces in any area of dispute since World War II, except of course in the open conflict of the Korean war? For example, it is nearly six times the concentration of troops that was present in the Congo. In order to further the aims of attaining a workable and reasonable compromise during Namibia’s transition to independence, will the Government suggest to the Secretary-General of the United Nations or to the United Nations itself that there could be reasonably a very substantial reduction in the number of troops proposed for that country?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-As my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs has made clear, there has been some examination of this matter by the Government. That examination wil! need to be resumed relatively shortly. It is my understanding that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has had discussions about these matters in the United Nations in New York. I would only add that the size and the composition of the force were suggested as a result of the inquiries and examination by an expert group. I think it would be a bold measure to suggest that some different force of a different composition should be adequate when that suggestion has come from a distance without having examined the circumstances on the spot.

page 1694

AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CONTROL BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Dried Fruits Export Control Act 1924, 1 present the annual report of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 1694

QUESTION

HANDBOOK FOR COMMONWEALTH MEDICAL OFFICERS

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In accordance with the undertaking given to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) by the acting Minister for Finance (Mr Howard) in answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1626 on 10 October 1978, I present for the information of honourable members parts III and IV of the handbook for Commonwealth medical officers which relate to the medical guidelines used in the administration of the Superannuation Act.

page 1694

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation or to obtain leave to make a brief statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:
Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr UREN:

-I wish to make a brief statement about a member of my personal staff who was personally attacked by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). The explanation I seek to make is that I was responsible for his going to Darwin.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am trying to ascertain whether the honourable member for Reid wishes to make a personal explanation or is asking the House for leave to make a statement.

Mr UREN:

-I am seeking to make a brief personal statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

-I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr UREN:

– During Question Time the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs made a personal attack on a member of my staff. The situation is that I was not in the chamber at the time; I was in my office.

Government members interjecting -

Mr UREN:

– Some honourable members on the Government side are interjecting. Every honourable member knows that the most basic right that a member of this House has is to set the record straight.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will proceed.

Mr UREN:

– As I have said, during Question Time the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs attacked a member of my personal staff. I was not in the House at the time; I was in my office where I was listening to the broadcast of the proceedings of Parliament. Mr Frank Muller is a member of my personal staff. He is one of the 10 additional staff members appointed following the last Remuneration Tribunal decision, which was endorsed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Those additional staff members were allocated to members of the Opposition front bench. In the recess I asked Mr Muller to travel to Darwin to seek the facts and to look at the local situation in respect of the activities of the Northern Land Council. I also asked him -

Mr Baillieu:

-Who paid for the tickets?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There are too many interjections coming from my right. Perhaps the interjections are coming from the newer members. The older members would know that it is the practice of the House to listen to a personal explanation in silence.

Mr UREN:

-I asked Mr Muller personally to see Galarrwuy Yunupingu, who is a personal friend of mine, and io express to him our solidarity in regard to the Council’s stand for the right of Aboriginal people to make their own decision without intimidation. I have complete confidence in Mr Muller. I was not present during his conversation with Mr Yunupingu. Therefore I cannot vouch for anything that was said. But I have great faith and trust in Mr Muller. He is a very sensitive and loyal person. I think that the attack by the Minister on a member of my personal staff was a cowardly one. At least the Minister could have given me some notice of what he intended to say. If he had I would have been in the chamber and I could have raised the matter with him.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented during Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr YOUNG:

– Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr YOUNG:

-The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said at the conclusion of Question Time that perhaps those of us who had asked him questions about revealing his income and the amount of taxation he was paying had some ulterior motive in so asking. I deny that I have any ulterior motive. I merely asked the question to show how morally corrupt it is to ask lower income people to make that sort of information available to their doctors -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is arguing the matter. He will resume his seat.

Mr YOUNG:

– . . . when the Prime Minister, who wrote the Budget, will not make it available to the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-In today’s edition of the Australian Financial Review, in Mungo MacCallum ‘s column ‘From the Gallery’ under the headline ‘Labor’s Maralinga attack very non-nuclear’, the following paragraph appears:

The Opposition’s attack was decidedly less than nuclear. The first indication that it would be so was when the member for Labor -

Actually, that should read ‘Lalor’-

Mr Barry Jones (who has been complaining privately that he would much rather take over a more philosophical and less aggressive role than that which has been handed to him this session) asked Mr Killen about a statement made in 1972, which adduced that the half life of the majority of the waste was some 1 5 to 20 years.

I wish to make it clear that I have not been complaining privately or publicly that I would much rather take a more philosophical and less aggressive role than that which has been handed to me this session. What I have been complaining about privately to journalists, and wrote about in an article in last Sunday’s Canberra Times entitled ‘How can we get the media to look beyond the trivialities?’, is that the media is inclined to report material at length when it involves personal attack or criticism and is inclined to ignore the reporting of complex examination of basic philosophical or economic concepts such as the conflict of value systems. This may have a serious effect in that it may discourage honourable members from talking about complex issues because we tend to live or die politically on the basis of the media coverage which we generate. Temperamentally, I have an aggressive side and a philosophic side. I am not a conscientious objector so far as dropping buckets is concerned although I like to keep my aggression under control.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is entitled to make a personal explanation about a misrepresentation but not to make a confession of his political philosophy.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I conclude by saying that the Parliament is ill served when the more serious thoughtful side of our work is consistently ignored.

page 1696

INTERNATIONAL AVIATION POLICY

Ministerial Statement

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– by leave- For the information of honourable members I table the report submitted to me by a committee which reviewed the economic regulatory aspects of Australia’s international civil aviation policy, together with a statement of policy decided upon after Government consideration of that report. I seek leave to have the latter document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1696

ECONOMIC REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL AIR SERVICES

I am pleased to table the report submitted to me by a committee which reviewed the economic regulatory aspects of Australia’s international civil aviation policy. Apart from minor corrections, editing has been made only to protect confidential material supplied by commercial interests which made submissions to the committee, and to delete detailed comment relating to issues that impinge upon Australia’s relations with foreign countries. Arrangements are in hand for this document to receive general distribution.

The committee sought the assistance of the Bureau of Transport Economics with its work on factors affecting the demand for international travel. A paper prepared by the Bureau and discussed in the report has been released today also.

Honourable members will recall that the Government instituted this review late last year. The committee which undertook the work comprised senior officers of the Department of Transport and Dr C. A. Gannon, Associate Professor of Economics at Monash University. It was given extensive assistance by a range of organisations, associations and individuals whose contribution the Government gratefully acknowledges. The views of the State Governments were also sought and taken into account.

Present Policy

Australian policy in this area of civil aviation has been directed to the development and operation of safe and efficient scheduled services to areas of the world of principal travel, trade and political interest to this country. The aim has been to encourage the development of fares and freight rates that are as low as possible and consistent with commercially viable operations by carriers. A further objective has been to secure continued Australian participation in the provision of these services. This has been achieved by designating Qantas Airways Limited, a wholly Government owned company, to operate the services allowed an Australian carrier under the air services agreements we have with other countries. Regulation of non-scheduled operations has been supportive of maintenance of scheduled services.

As the House knows, this policy has been pursued on a bipartisan basis by successive governments. It has been extremely successful in many ways, allowing the continued and very rapid development of Australia’s international air services.

In 1977, using the air mode, approximately one million short term visits overseas were made by Australian residents and in excess of 500,000 short term visitors came to Australia. Present air services allow Australian residents to travel to all pans of the world with relatively little inconvenience and with journey durations so short even for the most distant destinations, that would have been considered impossible 25 years ago. Freight movements by air into and out of Australia grew to over 80,000 tonnes in 1976, representing 10.4 per cent of the total value of imports and 4 per cent of the total value of exports.

Air travel to any pan of the world can be arranged from most major towns in Australia. The traveller is afforded a wide choice of carrier, times of carriage and price options.

Fares have fallen in real terms and, in some cases, in actual money terms over the past decade.

However, the policy has been called increasingly into question. The principal complaint and the most important in having the Government decide upon the review, is that the present arrangements do not allow the development of lower fares and freight rates that can be offered to the public. Quite obviously, price is the primary focus of public and government attention and properly so. The cost of air travel to and from Australia impacts both on Australian residents travelling abroad and on visitors to Australia. The latter, in turn impacts on Australia ‘s tourist industry.

Less commented upon is the underlying inefficient use of resources associated with the current arrangements, which in turn has led to problems and disquiet in both the aviation and the travel industry. This is evident most in unauthorised discounted travel, available only to some members of the public and some retailers of travel. The discriminatory aspects of this practice are offensive, I know, to all honourable members.

It needs to be recognised that Australia’s aviation agreements with other countries were developed largely during a period when international aviation was much less technologically sophisticated than it is today. The route structure and pattern of our overseas air services during their developmental phase were governed largely by the technical capabilities of the aircraft of those times. Today’s aircraft are more sophisticated and more economic in their operation than those of yesterday. They provide the means for a new policy basis to satisfy the public’s desire for lower international air fares.

The policy itself has not been clearly set down and discussed by this House for many years, despite significant changes in the manner of operation of international air services, their dramatic growth and a very radical shift in the pattern of demand for these services. Details of the policy are little understood outside those close to government or the industry. Aspects of the regulatory arrangements and methods of fare construction have become so complex as to be not readily comprehended by members of the public.

The Review Report

When the Government considered this matter late last year it saw that changing existing arrangements to permit lower fares to be developed would involve choice between alternative courses. Each of these had advantages and disadvantages. It was clear that change could affect adversely the level of scheduled service frequency from all pons in Australia, particularly at the smaller pons such as Penh and Brisbane. Change would impinge upon the activities of all scheduled carriers serving this country, and upon Australia’s civil aviation arrangements with other governments. These were among the major problems the committee was asked to address.

I believe the report provides a useful summary of present policy, its benefits and defects and provides a basis for informed discussion of future arrangements in this dynamic industry. Optional courses for future policy both in respect of passengers and freight arrangements are discussed, as well as a wide range of associated matters that are of public importance.

The report confirms there is gross underutilisation of existing capacity of such magnitude as to indicate a serious inefficiency in the present supply of air services. Arrangements made with other countries, aimed at having capacity available on a route bear a reasonable relationship to the needs of the travelling public, are obviously not working appropriately, a problem not unique to Australian experience.

The report underlines that existing constraints which impinge most directly on the carriers’ ability to lower fares, are the inability, when required, to restrict or reduce capacity to reasonable market needs and the inability to establish, within a multilateral fare fixing machinery, fares structures which embrace an optimal mix of fare types. As a result of the present manner of fixing fares, traffic flows arise which do not correspond to the most economic manner of carrying traffic on » route and travel tends to be encouraged over relatively short sectors which are more expensive to operate. Carriers of intermediate countries have had undue influence on both the level of capacity and fares between countries at each end of a route.

The report also points to the lack of international agreement about denning scheduled and non-scheduled services, the latter being more commonly known as chaner services. Chaner services are not only regulated individually by each country, but, usually, separate regulatory provisions exist for passenger and freight chaner operations.

The report emphasises that no one country can unilaterally change international civil aviation policy. As a UK Committee of Inquiry on this subject said some years ago the air transport industry of any country is closely influenced by the policies and standards of other countries and it is not possible to start afresh and rewrite a policy unilaterally ‘.

The existing arrangements represent a complex balance of national and commercial interests struck over a period of many years. Policy change must take full account of this. However, the review committee considers the welfare benefits possible from seeking and securing improved arrangements make embarking on a course of change leading to reduction of inefficiencies in the present system well worth while. The Government endorses this view.

Objectives of Changed Policy

The Government decided changed policy should satisfy certain objectives.

The primary objective with respect to international air passenger services is to facilitate, in concert with other countries, the development of air service arrangements that allow the needs of the widest possible range of resident and visiting passengers to be satisfied in a safe, efficient, rational and commercially viable manner.

Particular attention must be given in the design of changed air service arrangements to the expansion of opportunities for low cost travel by the, now, large proportion of total passengers who are principally concerned with the price of travel, often termed the ‘price sensitive’ segment of the market. At the same time, however, the full implications for all passengers of changed arrangements must be assessed, especially where certain arrangements favour one type of consumer at the expense of others. This interaction arises because both the demand and the supply of the various types of air service are interdependent.

In short Government has a responsibility to all types of passengers, including those travelling for business or leisure, those resident in major gateway capital cities and those resident elsewhere, those who want travel flexibility and the immediate availability of service, or service ‘on-demand’, and those who are able and prepared to plan in advance and travel without interruption to their destination at a lower fare.

The Government recognises that the travel needs of various categories of passengers range over a variety of air service characteristics- such as price, schedule, frequency, seat availability, flexibility in routing and the ability to make stopovers on route, comfort and in-flight amenities.

However, the relative importance attached to these individual characteristics differs greatly among passengers. The most price sensitive passengers are willing to forego many desirable air service characteristics, or ‘ quality ‘ of service, for a lower fare. Other passengers need a higher quality of service, for example, the availability of a seat ‘on-demand ‘ and a frequent departure schedule, and are willing to pay a higher fare for it.

In practical terms, meeting this first objective requires recognition of the interdependence between different types of air service and the need for an appropriate balance to be struck between provision of opportunities for travel at low fares and the provision of higher quality air services, but at higher prices.

The increasing demand for the services provided by the air transport industry is largely attributable to the growth in leisure travel. Rising incomes and expanding purchasing power coupled with increasing leisure point to a continuation of this growth.

The Government attaches particular importance to the development of tourism to Australia. It sees tourism as a means of earning foreign exchange and creating additional employment opportunities. Tourism also contributes to regional development.

As some 98 per cent of all short term visitors to Australia travel by air, the travel and tourist industry in Australia stand to benefit from the increased numbers of overseas visitors which are expected to come to Australia as a result of lower air fares.

New arrangements for lower international airfares will provide further stimulus to the travel and tourist industry and follow a series of initiatives taken by this Government to assist the development of tourism in Australia.

I refer, in particular, to extension of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme and the investment allowance to the tourist industry, establishment of a Travel and Tourist Industry Advisory Council, and a record 37 per cent increase in funds this year for the Australian Tourist Commission which will enable the doubling of its overseas promotional activities.

In the light of these developments, growth prospects for the travel and tourist industry are extremely favourable with consequent benefits in terms of increased employment opportunities and foreign exchange earnings.

The Government has reaffirmed that it will maintain the longstanding policy objective of securing Australian participation in the provision of our international air services.

As the report discusses, the nations of the world have never agreed on a multilateral approach to the economic regulation of international civil aviation, preferring to establish air service arrangements between them on a bilateral basis. The national interest considerations that influenced this approach are reflected in the almost universal reservation by countries of market opportunities for their national carriers within these bilateral arrangements.

Australia has its own particular interest in participating in the operation of international air services to this country. It is an island nation where alternative transport by land is impossible and by sea is not attractive or readily available. National defence planning relies on the existing infrastructure of civilian transport modes, including both the air transport resources and the supporting facilities that allow aircraft to fly. While other countries continue to pursue objectives perceived as meeting best their own national interest, concern would always remain in Australia about the vulnerability of dependence on other countries for the provision of our international air services.

Not least, the Government accepts that other countries have legitimate expectations and concern about the development of their own aviation interests. Other governments have a clear right to seek, as they do, a fair and equal opportunity for their carriers to participate in the provision of international air services between their own and other countries. The Australian Government respects these rights, just as it wishes Australian interests respected.

However, within arrangements organised on this basis, there can be legitimate concern about the possibilities of inefficiencies arising. Carriers from some countries will be more efficient producers than those from others. Careful regulation and appropriate governmental intervention will be required to avoid disadvantage to consumer interests.

The Government has further decided that, at least until 1981, Qantas Airways Limited shall remain the sole Australian carrier designated to exercise the rights Australia has under the air service agreements it has negotiated with other countries.

The primary reason for retaining single designation is the relatively small size of our international air travel markets and the difficulty of sensibly accommodating additional airlines within these markets. Most routes from Australia are, by world standards, lightly travelled. As an example, passengers uplifted or discharged between all Australian ports and London during the year ended June 1977 were less in total than passengers uplifted between Los Angeles and London. On the latter route the British and US authorities have only recently agreed to the designation of two national carriers by each country. This is a single sector journey for modern wide-bodied aircraft. By contrast, London is served from five Australian gateway points and no less than 12 carriers are able to carry passengers on services to London where no change of carrier is required en route.

The Government has decided that it will review the policy for single designation in 1981, taking into account the state of the industry at that time and, in particular, whether expansion in travel, expected as a result of new arrangements, demonstrates significant growth in passenger numbers on major routes. Additionally, the next few years will be a period of change, during which Qantas will have to adapt to substantially altered circumstances.

I would add that the Government is confident that Board, management and employees of Qantas will continue to improve the efficiency of the Company’s operations. Australians can be proud of the contribution Qantas has made to the development of our international air services and its success in an industry that relies heavily on advanced management and technological skills. It has an enviable safety record which has been won by the care, dedication, training and skills of its employees. Qantas also has an excellent reputation internationally for the quality of service it provides its passengers both ‘on ground’ and in the air. The Government has every confidence that it will respond to the challenge change will bring.

We endorse the long standing view that Australia’s international air services as a whole should be financially selfsupporting and fare levels adequately remunerative. In short, the Government does not accept that there should be subsidisation of international air services, although it recognises that at certain times on certain routes, for example, in developing a new route, this objective may not be satisfied.

The Government believes that changed arrangements should be understandable to the consumer. In particular it is anxious that new fare arrangements and the justification for their determination at particular levels should be capable of being readily understood. It accepts that the range of fare types may still be wide and that, necessarily, there will be conditions attached to many. They should, however, as the Committee suggests, be capable of being set out in a way which allows consumers to appreciate their differences and readily choose between them.

New arrangements should also aim to avoid the development of practices that lead to discrimination concerning the price paid by selected groups of consumers or retailers. Although fare levels remain agreed between governments, reductions, wherever possible, should be available to all.

Future Policy

The Government has concluded’ that these policy objectives are best achieved by seeking to negotiate air service arrangements with other countries based upon the exchange of the first four freedoms of the air. These arrangements should provide for the supply of a full range of different types of air travel by the designated airline of Australia and of the country with which we have negotiated the bilateral air service agreement. The level of supply should be directly related to genuine end-to-end traffic. There should be concurrent development of new fare structures that reflect the economies to the carriers such arrangements allow. By fare structure, I refer to the different types of service or ticket types available, the conditions that attach to each, and their associated fare levels.

The term freedom is, as the report points out, largely a misnomer. Freedoms are essentially privileges granted by countries to the carriers of other countries. These freedoms are described on pages 4 to 7 of the report.

The House will recognise that the new policy involves an exchange only of rights for carriage between Australia and another country. Essentially, it involves agreement about the carriage of genuine ‘end-to-end’ passengers between Australia and the other country concerned.

It is important that there should be wide general understanding of the reasons that led the Government to this change of policy.

The primary objective of achieving a fare structure that caters to all passengers’ demands and equitably serves those demands at the lowest possible cost, rests on the achievement of: high aircraft utilisation high average load factors, and overall efficiency in the production and distribution of air travel.

High utilisation and high average load factors are predicated upon two basic underlying conditions. Firstly, there should be an appropriate level of total seat capacity relevant to demand for travel on a particular route or air service market. Secondly, there should be a fare structure capable of ensuring that the total demand for individual flights is related as closely as possible to the total seat capacity available.

Different load factors are appropriate to different market segments, or groups of passengers whose purpose of travel differ. The market segment which includes those passengers who wish to travel ‘on demand’, for example, requires a lower load factor if seats are to be normally available on request. Clearly, this market segment should pay a higher price than the market segment embracing passengers who are prepared to accept conditions on their fare, such as committing themselves to booking in advance.

A careful and thorough consideration of alternative arrangements led the Government to the conclusion that the basic economic characteristics of both the supply of and demand for air services point towards the pre-eminence of structuring the supply of air services in terms of serving true origin/destination markets. By structuring air service arrangements on an ‘end-to-end’ basis, that is an exchange of third and fourth freedoms, the full economies of serving the true underlying flow of traffic in such markets can be realised.

The emergence of whole aircraft charter operations which are, of course, by their very nature substantially designed to serve traffic flowing on an ‘end-to-end’ basis between one country and one other country, that is third/fourth freedom traffic, demonstrates the economic advantages of the ‘endtoend ‘ arrangement.

Whole aircraft charter operations are predicated also upon high load factors. These are achieved by exploiting the fact that whereas the supply of air services cannot be stored’- seat capacity on a particular flight is a commodity which perishes immediately the flight is operated- some demand can be ‘stored’. This is done by using advance purchase and often, in addition, group travel and round trip conditions. These conditions consolidate passenger demand around particular times of departure and return.

However, whole aircraft charter services serve only those classes of passengers who are able to meet the conditions on travel that these arrangements impose. In other words, whole aircraft charter operations are specialised to a certain segment of the market. They ignore the needs of other classes of passengers, most notably those seeking regular ‘on demand ‘travel, who have until recently, been the traditional market for scheduled carriers.

The arrangements we propose can incorporate the advantages that charter services capture, yet simultaneously maintain, at an appropriate level, the public utility character of scheduled air services. This is especially important for a country such as Australia where the international gateways serve markets of different and modest sizes associated with a federation of States that are geographically widely separated.

Illustratively, much has been made of the well-publicised offer by a UK carrier to offer lower fares on a once weekly charter service between either Sydney or Melbourne and the UK.

Approval of that proposal on its own would have ignored the fact that both the demand for, and the supply of, the various types of air services are closely related and cannot be considered in isolation. Visitors to, or travellers from other parts of Australia would have been denied reasonable access to these lower fares. A large number of passengers both at the port served and elsewhere would wish to travel at the lower fares but would be unable to have their requirements satisfied. In short there would be gross under supply and a rationing problem created leading to extensive public dissatisfaction.

If the Government had then simply extended services of this type to meet demand further problems would have arisen. Significant scheduling changes would have been made which would have impacted adversely on service availability and frequency, particularly at the smaller gateways of Brisbane, Perth and Darwin. This would have most adverse affects on business and tourism and for Australian travellers in those centres and the regions they serve.

Additionally, these developments would have happened without any regard to our relations with those other countries whose interests would have been affected.

The arrangements we propose are expected to offer approximately five times the number of seats at lower fares than would have that proposal- indeed off-peak seat availability alone is proposed to be twice that total. Most importantly, such seats will be offered to and from all Australian gateways.

There is a second aspect of the demand/supply relationship which is very important. Demand for air services varies throughout the year by season and direction of travel and this variation is very significant on certain of our routes. The level of capacity available cannot be varied to a significant degree. Consequently, if air services are obliged to cater for demand throughout the year the level of capacity provided will be dictated by peak demand.

The arrangements we propose, which allow all types of services to be met, when combined with control of capacity on the basis of true ‘end-to-end’ traffic, allow the total cost of accommodating demand for all types of services at all periods of the year to be minimised.

Fare structures can be developed that are responsive to market needs and efficient in satisfying demand on a year round basis. In particular, they allow fares to be set in such a way that peak demand is priced to reflect that it is the principal determinant of the capacity levels. This allows aircraft investment decisions to be soundly based and the problems of excess capacity minimised. The latter are, of course, at the heart of unauthorised discount selling of air travel and the arrangements we suggest will go a long way towards reducing its incidence.

The Government reviewed very carefully whether the arrangements proposed would lead to inefficiencies in the production and distribution of air travel. Within heavily regulated industry this is always a matter of concern. It concluded that it would not, although this will require continued Government intervention to ensure that consumer’s interests are protected.

Carriers will compete on practically all air routes to secure their market share.

Air services to and from Australia are not provided in isolation, but exist within a total international environment. Prices on other routes impact upon those to Australia. Development of improved equipment, innovative pricing arrangements, new management procedures, marketing, design and engineering concepts spread quickly throughout the industry. The incentive for this to proceed remains.

I propose to ask the Qantas Board to make officers available to meet with officers of my Department to establish whether comparative efficiency measures the Company has already developed to assess its performance against foreign airlines can be extended and the results reported regularly to Government.

More critical analysis of fare proposals and service arrangements will be developed within my own Department, and I expect the Bureau of Transport Economics to take an increased interest in research relating to this industry.

A further consideration which weighed very heavily with the Government in deciding to propose to other governments the arrangements I have outlined is that they take into account, and respect fully, the bilateral character of international air service arrangements.

Such arrangements are directed towards establishing agreement, between Australia and each other country, that the air transport facility shall be directed towards carriage of traffic which is genuinely moving between the two countries. It will permit the airlines of each country to concentrate upon that carriage and the development of movement of passengers, and hence the enhancement of tourist opportunities. -

The Government believes that many other governments around the world will respect our proposal. It does not seek to assert any pre-eminent role for the Australian carrier in air service arrangements, although on most routes from Australia, Australian originating traffic predominates. It concedes that the carrier of the other country has an equal interest in the carriage of this traffic.

An examination the Government has had undertaken of the effect of the changed arrangements indicates that many countries with which we have air service agreements will benefit from change. The lower fares which we believe are possible will generate large numbers of new travellers, benefiting not only consumers but also the airlines and the tourist industries of each country. Carriers can operate in an environment which allows a satisfactory return for the significant investment made in providing their services.

In a very few cases the arrangements will impact adversely on the carrier or tourist interests of another country. Any initial loss of tourism revenue to those countries, because of an increased number of passengers moving on a direct ‘endtoend’ service not stopping over en route, should be offset, within the short to medium term, by generation of additional passengers destined for that country. In the main, travellers stay longer at their country of destination than they do during a stop-over and make higher expenditures on the purchase of local goods and services.

The Government has been obliged to weigh up the very considerable consumer welfare benefits possible in changed arrangements against a few, initially adverse, effects on other countries. We are confident these can be overcome in the medium to longer term.

I ask the House to note that alternative methods of securing lower fares, such as permission for whole charter operations, apart from adversely affecting the quality of scheduled services and not satisfying the Government’s requirements that services should be distributed around Australia, would also disadvantage other countries and their carriers. This would happen without the Government endeavouring to explicitly address the problems that arise or seeking to secure, in consultation with other governments, arrangements for future operations that took account of mutual interests.

The Government envisages that significant cost savings to the carriers are possible under the changed arrangements, apart from the overall economies that will flow from the improved institutional arrangements.

I would underline that the report presented a series of policy options. The Government’s decisions do not explicitly adopt any one of these. Obviously, the policy we have adopted is closer to the option described by the Committee as ‘operations by designated national carriers alone in a third and fourth freedom market ‘ than it is to others.

However, the Government noted the advantages and disadvantages attaching to the different options in the report. It felt that certain of the advantages of different choices could be achieved by adopting the policy I have outlined.

Passenger Fares

I said earlier that I wished new fare structures to be more readily understood by consumers and that the justification for the level of individual fare types be more readily comprehended.

Without in any way prejudicing results of discussions that are about to commence I felt I should indicate to the House some general characteristics of new fare arrangements that we would prefer.

Different routes have different travel demand characteristics and it is important that passenger demand preferences be identified and satisfied. Some work on surveying passengers’ requirements has already been commenced by my Department and the Bureau of Transport Economics. This will be developed further.

We are not averse to the availability of a wide range of fare types but we would want them to be designed in a systematic and efficient way that reflects satisfaction of passenger preferences and as far as possible the associated costs. To the extent possible the basis of fare structures should be rigorously documented.

As an illustration, evidence presented to the Committee indicated that first class travel on some routes appeared to be under-priced. Obviously, where this exists it should be corrected. It is inappropriate that there should be crosssubsidisation of a fare, which provides higher quality of service, from lower priced fares. On some routes travel by persons visiting friends and relatives is a major part of total travel demand. Such travellers have little need for accommodation arrangements attached to their fares and are principally interested in access to lowest individually priced fares. On other routes, holiday excursion travel predominates and group inclusive fares may provide a more appropriate vehicle for ensuring the development of lowest cost travel arrangements. Even in such cases the Government would hope to have lower fare types available for individual travel.

Briefly, we want fare types which are responsive to passenger preferences and systematically and efficiently based upon costs. The report notes that such fare structures may be difficult for a consumer to comprehend at first glance. However, the different types of fares can be readily partitioned into smaller groups of fare types, to which most passengers would wish to direct their detailed choice. I propose to ask my Department to consult with the airline and travel industry with a view to developing an improved presentation of fares to consumers and having travel literature explain satisfactorily the conditions that attach to these.

New fare structures should, to the extent possible, avoid some of the current unsatisfactory fare construction principles. Pro-ration of fares, for example, an arrangement whereby revenue is divided amongst carriers on multi-carrier passenger journeys, leads to significant dilution of revenue on some routes, which, in turn, leads to carriers pressing to maintain fares at artificially high levels.

I would make clear, passengers wishing to stop off or transfer at another country to proceed to other destinations will have the facility to do so. But this will be at fares which reflect the higher cost this facility incurs.

We shall seek appropriate arrangements with the authorities of other countries to have carriers observe the fares governments have agreed upon and ensure that selling arrangements are not used to subvert these. Consideration is also being given to further amendment to the Air Navigation Regulations to limit such infringements.

Implementation

Following an examination of the report by the Government discussions were held with the United Kingdom authorities as the UK is at the end of our longest and most important overseas air route. These discussions confirmed that, if the changes we proposed are introduced significant fare reductions were possible. However, both Governments recognise that changed arrangements impact upon our air service agreements with other countries and that it would be appropriate for discussions to be held with those countries before any final agreement is reached.

The House will be interested to have an indication of the types and levels of fares which the discussions with the UK authorities led us to consider might be developed between the five Australian gateway points and London under changed arrangements. The figures I will quote are for Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. There will be appropriate adjustments for Perth and Darwin.

A new fare structure is proposed. A new range of advance purchase fares, both return and one way, would be introduced. The APEF return would be $998 for the peak periods, currently $1,150, shoulder $870 currently $1,050, off peak $568 currently $850. This is close to the level which had been proposed for charters, while still retaining the benefits of scheduled services. The one way APEF fare would be peak $582, shoulder $532, off peak $432 compared to the current economy excursion one way fare of $695 at all times of the year. The advance purchase period would be shortened from the current 90 days to 45 days. There would be no minimum or maximum stay conditions. The economy would be reduced from $1,880 to $1,450 return but without stopover. A new type of fare with different conditions is suggested for introduction between economy and first class fares which would retail at $1,950. First class fares, it appears, should be increased with the exact level to be determined but probably with different service conditions.

I must stress these are provisional only as they were agreed before the recent fuel price increase and the implementation of these arrangements is subject to the solution of some remaining practical problems and to the outcome of negotiations with other countries concerned. However, they do illustrate to the House the significant level of fare reduction we are confident it is possible to achieve under the arrangements we propose.

The Government has now authorised negotiations to commence with a number of other governments and these will proceed as quickly as possible. The House will understand that it is impossible for me, ahead of these negotiations, to indicate what changed arrangements and fare levels may apply in the future to those countries. Such arrangements and fares demand the concurrence of the governments concerned. Nevertheless significant savings in most fare types are believed to be possible under the proposals we will be advancing to those countries. Priority is to be given in the first instance to negotiations with countries along the Australia- UK /Europe route.

I shall make a more detailed statement upon the arrangements agreed as soon as I am able. I have instructed my officers to endeavour to reach sufficient agreement to allow me to make a further announcement before Christmas. I cannot say with certainty at what stage changed arrangements and fares on the various routes will be introduced. I am hopeful at least some of the new fares can be introduced early next year.

Related Matters

There is a range of related issues which the Government will have to address in the light of discussions and agreement with other governments.

Among the more important is whether or not our air service agreements should continue to allow carriers to discuss fares, in the first instance, within the IATA framework.

Originally, the Government was attracted to the idea of having the Australian carrier withdraw from the IATA traffic conference system. As the House would know the Australian Government has moved increasingly outside the IATA framework in determining fares that apply on many of our international routes.

However, IATA is itself re-examining the methods whereby passenger fares and rates between countries are decided and, in particular, a proposal that the carriers of the two countries concerned should have a primary role in deciding the fares to be recommended to their governments for carriage between the two countries. At the same time, such arrangements would allow carriers from other countries who may be affected by these decisions to participate in discussion of the fare levels. There are advantages in proceeding this way, as well as disadvantages.

There remains the whole range of IATA resolutions which go to the facilitation and organisation of travel, which are very generally observed around the world. Many are called into the structure of the tariff structures approved for travel to and from Australia. Consumers’ ability to move with ease from anywhere in Australia to points throughout the world depend upon this industry framework. The resolutions cover interline and clearing house arrangements, reservation procedures, rules on format of tickets and so on, which have been developed over the years within IATA. They define the produce offered the consumer, provide valuable trade facilitation and considerable consumer protection.

The manner in which such arrangements might continue if IATA was no longer supported have not been properly addressed by governments. It should be noted that these industry association arrangements benefit non-IATA members also, which rely upon this framework.

Before taking any decision on this matter the Government wishes to see what new arrangements IATA itself develops and, importantly, take account of the views of other governments with which Australia has bilateral air service agreements.

The arrangements we propose preclude, at this time, significant charter operations running in parallel with scheduled services. Indeed, the arrangements we propose are essentially multi-service arrangements. However, the need for true non-scheduled operations will persist. Travel to off-line points, for example, to permit immigrants to this country from South America to visit their homes on occasions of special significance, such as Christmas, will need to be catered for. Single entity charter arrangements should still apply. There should be room for charters to be operated for route development purposes. For the time being, the Government will continue to apply existing policy and I shall address this matter again after we have spoken with other countries.

It will be apparent that carrying more passengers per aircraft will have the effects of increasing passenger seating density and, even allowing for significant generation of traffic because of lower fares, of reducing frequency.

The Government, therefore, proposes to retain considerable interest in the question of passenger comfort. Many of our routes are amongst the longest in the world and standards appropriate to shorter sectors may not be suitable to Australia. However, it must be realised that there is a direct relationship between certain comfort standards, for example, seat width and pitch, and the costs of providing the service, and, hence the fare at which it is available. Proposals discussed with the UK authorities, however, were predicated on retention of standards very close to existing economy class standards for the passengers travelling on least expensive fare types.

Because total frequency may decline it will be necessary in the short term to allow certain foreign carriers and Qantas to call at more than one Australian gateway on the one flight to ensure that a reasonable frequency from all gateways is retained. Domestic airlines object to this practice claiming it dilutes their own traffic base and hence their ability to lower fares. However, the Government considers that, as the passenger is travelling principally for the purpose of an international journey, overall public interest is, in general, best served by the arrangement. The aim is, as traffic grows, to increase the number of direct flights between discrete city pairs. These reduce cost to the international carrier, avoid stops for international passengers and, importantly, reduce demand on ground infrastructure.

Freight

The Government is yet to take a decision on future arrangements that may apply to the carriage of air freight. Of the options listed within the report the Government is initially attracted to Option D, which provides greater flexibility on the part of Government to vary the charter operators ‘ access to import cargoes and to vary the rules for export cargoes that may be carried by charter operators.

However, the Government recognises that operators of combined passenger/cargo services, that is to say, multiservice carriers, would have to be in a position to respond more quickly than they are able under current bilateral arrangements to the competitive pressures that change would create. If this option is to work, it will be essential that this ability to respond be secured, or freight charter operators would seriously erode the revenue the multi-service carriers can earn. This could prejudice the successful introduction of lower fares.

It is proposed that further consultation be held between my Department, designated and charter operators, import and export interests and freight forwarding interests to explore whether criteria can be determined which would allow this regulatory relaxation to be made. This would remove the principal causes for complaint about existing freight arrangements voiced to the committee.

Conclusion

The report indicates that change will involve the Government considering more frequently problems concerning the economic regulation of the industry. I believe this to be entirely appropriate. Further, I welcome the opportunity this will present to ensure that issues affecting consumers and producers of international aviation services are raised and discussed in the Parliament.

The Government will, of course, continue to support the work that has commenced within the International Civil Aviation Organisation on this matter. It trusts the report and associated research will contribute to these intergovernmental discussions.

Mr NIXON:
LP

– The Government has agreed that Australia’s overseas air service arrangements should be changed. In making this decision we are cognisant of the very real difficulties that change will involve. We are equally aware, however, that while the existing arrangements have allowed the rapid development of international air services, they are in many ways inefficient. In particular, they are not appropriate to expanding the opportunities for lower cost travel. The report, in fact, confirms there is gross under-utilisation of existing capacity of such magnitude as to indicate a serious inefficiency in the present supply of air services. It is the Government’s aim to introduce lower fares on our international aviation routes on a completely non-discriminatory basis. In other words, fares will be available to all members of the public. In addition, appropriate selling arrangements will be established which do not unduly advantage one section of the travel industry as against another.

In accordance with our determined policy the Government has decided to seek to negotiate changed air service arrangements on an endtoend basis, that is, an exchange of the Third and Fourth Freedoms of the Air. The Government considers that the full economies of serving genuine end-to-end traffic could best be realised by this course. I draw the attention of honourable members to page 6 of the report for an explanation of the Freedoms of the Air. It is our intention that the airlines of each country should supply a full range of different types of air travel, that is, from the lowest possible cost travel, which necessarily will have conditions attached, such as advanced purchase, right through the range to first class, which offers on demand travel with higher quality of in-flight service. To put it quite simply, the objective of the policy is to get better utilisation of expensive aircraft by filling empty seats. By achieving this, the cost to the airlines of each passenger carried will be reduced thus enabling a lower range of fares to be offered. There will also be some important side benefits such as the conservation of fuel- a matter of increasing importance- and the more efficient use of airport facilities in the medium to longer term.

As well as reducing fares, the arrangements we are seeking to negotiate will provide reasonable frequency of service at all Australian gateway airports, not merely just at our largest cities. This is a most important point not only to the Australian residents who use Perth, Brisbane and Darwin as their international gateways, but also to the promotion of tourism to Australia and to regional development. The need to retain the international significance of Perth, Brisbane and Darwin was one of the major considerations in our decision not to support at this time the well publicised proposals of a United Kingdom carrier to offer lower fares by what were described as charter type services between Australia and the United Kingdom.

There were, of course, other proposals put to the Government advocating alternative methods for providing lower cost travel. None of these proposals, however, individually addressed how fares could be lowered on all routes to and from Australia. They did not address the question of how a reasonable level of service frequency could be continued to be operated to all Australian gateway points. They did not give consideration to how changed arrangements would affect other countries with which Australia has bilateral air service agreements.

While the United Kingdom charter operator’s proposal was to operate two DC- 10 aircraft a week between the United Kingdom, Europe and Sydney, it would not provide any opportunity for visitors to other centres to have access to lower fares to Australia. Nor would it have allowed Australians who did not live in Sydney to have the opportunity to use these lower fares. The fares therefore would have been quite discriminatory. More passengers both at Sydney and elsewhere would wish to travel at the lower fares than the number of services could accommodate. In short, there would be gross under supply and a rationing problem created leading to extensive public dissatisfaction.

If the Government then simply extended services of this type to meet demand further problems would have arisen. Significant scheduling changes would have been made which would have impacted adversely on service availability and frequency, particularly at the smaller gateways of Brisbane, Perth and Darwin. This would have most adverse affects on business and tourism and for Australian travellers in those centres and the regions they serve. Additionally, these developments would have happened without any regard to our relations with those other countries whose interests would have been affected.

The arrangements we propose are expected to offer approximately five times the number of seats at lower fares than would have the UK operator’s proposal. Indeed, off-peak seat availability alone is proposed to be twice that total. Most importantly, such seats will be offered to and from all Australian gateways. The UK operator argued that the lower fares he was proposing would generate additional traffic. But the Government accepts fully that lower fares will generate additional traffic. In fact, many of the proposals we will be advancing to other countries rest for their economic justification upon significant generation of new traffic.

The Government’s proposal will allow the full range of different travel requirements to be met within the one air service. This will permit those consumers who are prepared to travel under charter type operations at lower fares to do so. In addition, however, it will provide sufficient capacity for those who wish to travel at short notice or with more flexibility in their travel arrangements. The Government’s proposal will permit maintenance of reasonable frequency levels at all airports and, as traffic grows, allow the development of more city-to-city direct service.

The new arrangements we have proposed for lower international airfares will provide further stimulus to the travel and tourist industry. They follow a series of initiatives taken by this Government to assist the development of” tourism in Australia. I refer, in particular, to extension of the export market development grants scheme and the investment allowance to the tourist industry, establishment of a Travel and Tourist Industry Advisory Council, and a record 37 per cent increase in funds this year for the Australian Tourist Commission which will enable the doubling of its overseas promotional activities. In the light of these developments, growth prospects for the travel and tourist industry are extremely favourable with consequent benefits in terms of increased employment opportunities and foreign exchange earnings.

Whilst it is not normal practice to be specific about details of proposals under negotiation, I am compelled to be on this occasion. There has been a great deal of Press speculation and some criticism concerning the Government’s endeavours to reduce air fares wherever possible on our international routes. This has had its effects on the travel industry. It has also affected public confidence and led to consumer difficulty in planning future travel arrangements. In order to put at rest this Press speculation and to overcome some of the uncertainty it has caused in the travel industry and within the Australian community, I have agreed, in consultations with the British Government, to outline today the indicative fare levels I am hopeful of achieving on the United Kingdom-Australia route.

I make the point that the fares I am about to outline are indicative only. There is no firm agreement on this matter between the British Government and the Australian Government. The fare levels proposed could alter depending upon circumstances such as prevailing currency rates of exchange, world fuel pricing policy and the details of the final agreements negotiated. The new fare structure proposed will provide a new range of advance purchase fares, both return and one way. The advance purchase excursion fare return would be $998 for the peak periods. Currently is it $ 1 , 1 50. The shoulder fare would be $870. Currently it is $1,050. The off peak fare would be $568. Currently it is $850. These fares are close to those which had been proposed for charters while still retaining the benefits of scheduled services. The one way APEF fare would be: Peak, $582; shoulder, $532; and off peak, $432. This is compared to the current economy excursion one way fare of $695 at all times of the year. The advance purchase period would be shortened from the current 90 days to 45 days. There would be no minimum or maximum stay conditions. Importantly, the economy fare would be reduced from $1,880 to $ 1 ,450 return but without a stop-over.

A new type of fare with different conditions is suggested for introduction between economy and first class fares which would retail at $1,950. First class fares, it appears, should be increased with the exact level to be determined but probably with different service conditions. The figures I have just quoted are for direct services from Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane to London. Appropriate adjustments are proposed for Darwin and Perth. I must stress again these are provisional only as no final agreement has been reached with the United Kingdom Government. They do illustrate to the House, however, the significant level of fare reduction we are confident it is possible to achieve under the changed arrangements we propose. The Government has now authorised negotiations to commence with a number of other governments and these will proceed as quickly as possible. The House will understand that it is impossible for me, ahead of these negotiations, to indicate what changed arrangements and fare levels may apply in the future to those countries. Nevertheless significant savings in most fare types are believed to be possible under the proposals we will be advancing to those countries. Priority is to be given in the first instance to negotiations with countries along the Australia-United Kingdom route.

I shall make a more detailed statement upon the arrangements agreed as soon as I am able. I have instructed my officers to endeavour to reach sufficient agreement to allow me to make a further announcement before Christmas. I am hopeful at least some of the new fares can be introduced early next year. The level of fares and fare types between Australia and any other country require approval of both the Austraiian and at least the government of the other country. I stress that changes cannot be made unilaterally. What the Government is proposing is a radical change in the structure of our air service arrangements. We believe, however, that these will be generally acceptable to many other governments. They respect fully the bilateral character of air service arrangements. The Government has agreed on the approach the Australian delegations will take in negotiating changed arrangements with other countries. I repeat that priority is to be given in the first instance to negotiating these changed arrangements with countries along the kangaroo route. Negotiations with other countries will commence as soon as practicable.

The speculation that we propose to terminate the operations of some European carriers now flying to Australia is not true. The Government has considered proposals that can be discussed with governments in Europe aimed at maintaining the operations of those carriers. We would, however, expect that our policy objective could be achieved and lower fares introduced.

Mr Jull:

-Including KLM Royal Dutch Airlines.

Mr NIXON:

-Including KLM. The new arrangements we will seek are aimed at maintaining the right of Australia to participate equally in our international air services. The Government believes Qantas is a relatively efficient carrier. We propose to maintain the long standing policy that Qantas shall remain the sole designated Australian airline to operate services allowed an Australian carrier under our air service agreements. The Government will, however, review the position in 1981 to determine whether or not our overseas air travel markets have grown sufficiently to allow the possible designation of another airline to provide a further competitive spur.

I make the point in answer to those who will argue that those proposals will create a monopoly situation that this is not the case. Nor is it a simple duopoly. Passengers wanting a wider choice of airlines to many destinations can do so but at higher cost and a change of aircraft. For the many who want direct services there will be initially a choice between two competing carriers at least, and possibly more later. If whole plane load charters had operated on a regular basis almost certainly the same limitation of choice would have applied because of our small market size. International air services to Australia do not exist separately. Change and pricing on many routes affect pricing on our routes. Allegations that the Government is unduly protective to Qantas are simply not true. What the Australian Government is doing is protecting Australia’s rights to participate in international air services. It would indeed be folly to leave arrangements solely in the hands of overseas operators. Whilst the Government has not taken a firm decision on policy in respect to future freight arrangements, we are attracted to the idea of changed regulatory practices aimed at removing the principal complaints voiced to the review committee. I have directed that consultation on how these changes might be introduced between my Department and those interests affected take place.

Finally I impress upon the House that there is no short cut to introducing lower fare types that will be available universally and which will be capable .of being sustained. It is essential in a country the size of ours that the needs of all classes of travellers all over the Commonwealth be met as competely as possible. This is a most important policy consideration. It is important both to Australians wishing to travel and to Australia’s own tourist industry. Within the constraints imposed by the very real difficulties involved in achieving change the foregoing outlines what the Government is seeking to achieve. I commend to all honourable members the report of the review committee and the accompanying documents I have just tabled. In their consideration of the proposals I have outlined I urge honourable members to consider the real benefits which can flow to Australia and to the people of this nation from the successful development of the new fare arrangements. I present the following paper:

International Aviation Policy- Ministerial Statement, 1 1 October 1978.

Motion (by Mr Groom) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The statement by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and the tabling of the international civil aviation policy review comes on the first anniversary of the announcement that that review would be conducted. I have had barely two hours to examine the Minister’s statement, the report and its attachments, which in total number some 754 pages. The report contains a series of options. To some of them the Government appears to have given support, and others it has rejected. It is unclear from the Minister’s statement which is which. I invite the House first to recall the manner in which the review has been conducted and the Government’s performance in relation to international aviation policy. The Government, in its handling of the cheaper air fares issue, has achieved, I believe, a previously unsurpassed record for ineptness, irresponsibility and obsessional secrecy. It has failed to consider in an open and frank way the interest of millions of Australians in overseas travel. Twelve months ago, when the Minister announced the review, the Opposition responded that the review should be by way of a public inquiry in which’ the needs and wants of air travellers could be canvassed and the claims and counterclaims of competitive airline operators could be tested and evaluated. The Minister for Transport in his usual style replied:

What the public will be able to evaluate is what conclusions the Government comes to, and that is the important thing.

That is where the Opposition and the Government are in stark contrast. We believe that there is a role for consumer participation in aviation; that there has to be an end to the private club of the bureaucracy and the industry getting together and telling the people what they are to pay and what service they are to get. In other words, the Australian people would be gratuitously afforded the opportunity to view the verdict but not the evidence. That is what the Minister has done today. The public has been given the opportunity to view the verdict but not to view the evidence which was submitted. So instead of having a frank, responsible and informed public discussion on the air travel needs of Australians we have witnessed a succession of contrived, competitive leaks which have served to create confusion in the public mind, which have caused the public to defer travel and to have unsupported expectations of cheaper air fares, and which have caused considerable difficulty for the Australian tourist industry. The Minister was a direct contributor to the raised expectations because of the regular statements he made that he was sympathetic to Sir Freddie Laker’s proposals. He virtually invited Sir Freddie Laker to submit a firm proposal. However, the fact is that the Minister was well aware that before Laker Airways could fly to Australia it must first receive approval from the United Kingdom Government. That approval had not been obtained. In short, for a year the Australian public has been fobbed off, misinformed and deceived. The Minister’s longawaited statement can best be described as a false pregnancy, because it does not tell us anything new.

Mr Baillieu:

– ‘Phantom pregnancy’ is the term.

Mr MORRIS:

-I do not think the Minister would like the term ‘phantom pregnancy’. Let us call it a false pregnancy. Everything the Minister has said today we have read in the newspapers during the last eight to nine months, but some of it was more accurately reported in the newspapers than it has been presented today. The report does not set any firm dates for the introduction of cheap air fares. It contains no firm decisions and it leaves many questions unanswered.

From this side of the chamber I want to emphasise the view that I have expressed for a year on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. That view is that we believe that there is substantial room for reducing international and domestic air fares, that there should be a frank and public discussion of the whole subject of the aviation industry, including the needs and wants of air travel consumers, that there should be a discontinuation of the private club of the aviation industry and bureaucracy deciding what is good for air travellers, and that there has to be consumer participation in the decision-making process within the aviation industry. We reject utterly the high air fare policies of the present Government which has brought forward this long overdue report.

In the time remaining to me I want to turn to the Minister’s speech. He referred to the Government deciding to negotiate changed air service arrangements on an end to end basis- third and fourth freedoms of the air. Later in his speech he stated that it was untrue that the Government proposed to exclude any airlines from Australia. What he does not say is that the most likely result of the negotiations in relation to these third and fourth freedoms on an end to end basis will be that the airlines that he mentioned- they have been mentioned recently- will withdraw from Australia. So the effect will be the same: They will not be excluded but they will be squeezed out by the new conditions. The Minister went on to say in his statement:

It is our intention that the airlines of each country should supply . . . the lowest possible cost travel . . .

We do not take issue with the scale of fares that he has announced. I think that they will provide an opportunity for many thousands of Australians to see their relatives abroad, to re-join their families. But the Minister went on to say: the objective of the policy is to get better utilisation of expensive aircraft by filling empty seats.

We are right back to square one. The basic equation of airline operation is that more bodies and more seats mean lower air fares for all travellers. But the Minister only a few weeks ago presented himself to a transport conference as the champion of free enterprise. I would have thought that somewhere in the report or in his comments there would have been reference to the ability of competition to produce efficiency. In effect, what the Minister has said is that competition is out; it is inefficient. He says that the only way in which to get efficiency is by total regulation, by third and fourth freedoms negotiations, in spite of the comments he made a few weeks ago about free enterprise.

The Minister’s statement goes on to refer to all Australian gateway airports’. But he does not say anything about the recent increase in domestic air fares, a matter about which he has remained silent for some weeks now. The recent increase in domestic air fares has direct relevance to this statement and to the policies which the Minister has sought to enunciate, because one of the main factors in the minds of people proposing to come to Australia is how much it will cost them to travel within Australia when they get here. We cannot look at international air fares in isolation. They are inseparably linked to the cost structure of the domestic aviation industry. If the Government is genuine in wanting to help and to expand the Australian tourist industry it must accept the relevance of that point. In referring to the proponents of other proposals the Minister later in his statement said:

They did not give consideration to how changed arrangements would affect other countries with which Australia has bilateral air service agreements.

The fact is that whatever proposals are put forward by other countries, they first must receive the approval- they have to receive it at some stage anyway- of the government of the country of origin for the proposals which they seek to negotiate. So it is not an argument to say that we cannot consider their proposals or that they have not thought about how such proposals will affect other countries. They must first get the approval of the government of the country of origin. The Minister later in his statement referred to the significant scheduling changes which would have impacted adversely on service availability. In the interests of the public I would like the Minister at some later stage to expand on that statement, because nowhere in his statement, from what I have read of it so far, is there any indication of the likely changed frequency of scheduling of services.

Mr Nixon:

– You need to read the report.

Mr MORRIS As the Minister points out, I have not had an opportunity to read all of the report, but I have not seen any information in this regard. I hope that he will expand at some stage on the alteration to the frequency of scheduled services. The Minister then went on to say:

  1. . these developments would have happened without any regard to our relations with those other countries whose interests would have been affected.

I referred earlier to the fact that other countries have to have the stamp of approval of the country of origin. The Minister then went on to say:

The Government’s proposal will permit maintenance of reasonable frequency levels at all airports; and . . . allow the development of more city to city direct service.

The question which is immediately raised is: To which cities is the Minister referring? Does he mean that there will be more services to Perth and Brisbane? Does he mean that more gateway cities into Australia will be established? Does he mean that there will be more services of international aircraft operating within Australia. Those points, I believe, are important to the Australian tourist industry and the Australian economy. Again I ask that at some stage the Minister elaborate on these matters for the information of the Australian public, if they are not stressed in the detail of the report. The Minister went on to say in his statement:

The new arrangements we have proposed for lower international air fares will provide further stimulus to the travel and tourist industry.

He went on to refer to the record 37 per cent increase in funds this year for the Australian Tourist Commission. What the Minister is doing is taking the future and putting it in the past. The 37 per cent increase in funds this year for the Australian Tourist Commission has only just been announced. It did not have any effect on the tourist industry in the past year. But what has had an effect on the Australian tourist industry has been a 27 per cent cumulative increase in domestic air fares in this country in just over two years. That has had a retardant effect on the Australian tourist industry. What else has had an effect has been the fuelling and the promotion by government departments of leaks of the contents of this report. It is quite clear that over recent months one department has been leaking information contained in the report in an effort to get its point of view across and in an effort to damage maybe what the Department of Transport was trying to do, maybe what the Minister was trying to do, or maybe what a competitor airline was trying to do. All of that could have been avoided if the inquiry had been made public, if the airlines had been called before the inquiry to substantiate their claims. I see that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) is in the chamber. He is the Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism. Many of the airlines which made submissions to the review committee made submissions to the Committee on Tourism. They were able to appear in public before that Committee. They were able to put their case. The same process should have been followed in respect of this review. Later in his statement the Minister sought to give the impression that some special favour is being granted to the Australian public by the making of this announcement today. The Minister stated:

I have agreed, in consultations with the British Government, to outline today the indicative fare levels I am hopeful of achieving on the United Kingdom-Australia route.

Let us look at the difference in the way in which the United Kingdom deals with its residents and the way in which we are dealt with by this Government. The statement which the Minister made has been presented to the Parliament in such a way that its contents are apparently to be regarded as a favour or some special dispensation to the public. The Minister is coming clean. Let me turn to the United Kingdom Daily Telegraph of 9 August, the day after the negotiations took place between senior officers of the British Government and officers of the Australian Department of Transport. I will read two sentences from that newspaper:

A spokesman for the Department of Trade whose senior officials last week concluded a further round of talks with the Australian opposite numbers in Canberra said that the two governments had reached a broad measure of agreement about reducing the return air fare to $570.

That is a $2 difference. That is how the matter has been dealt with in the United Kingdom. Frankly, it has been handled in a much more open way than it has been dealt with here. So the Minister is not giving anything away at all in announcing the fare schedule today. The other point on page 7 that I would like to raise with the Minister is that he referred to the economy air fare being reduced from $1,880 to $1,450 without stopover. No mention is made of the penalty to be incurred for a stopover. On page 8 he refers to the priority being given to the Kangaroo route to London.

Mr Nixon:

– It has to be negotiated. You know that.

Mr MORRIS:

-On page 8 the Minister refers to the preference for the Kangaroo route to London. No reference is made to the Pacific. On page 9 he goes on to make a more detailed statement.

I hope it will not be on the second anniversary, this is the first anniversary. He goes on: ‘I am hopeful some of the new fares can be introduced early next year’. December this year is the peak season and most of the airlines will be almost sold out or well on the way to being sold out of seats at this stage for December. As I recall it, January is the peak season for traffic coming from London to Australia. April, May and June are peak months so we are going to look at some time post high season. Is it to be March or April or is it to be after the high season when the airlines can get all the business they want anyway?

In my mind there is a grave doubt that we are going into April, May or June rather than something like February or March, as the Minister is trying to indicate. Then he says on page 10 that the speculation that it is to be proposed to terminate the operation of some European carriers flying to Australia is not true. I outlined what was proposed in respect of KLM. It is quite clear from the negotiations that have occurred to date that what is going to happen is that JAT, KLM and UTA will be squeezed out of the new end to end arrangements. At the same time the Government is trying to negotiate better trading terms with the European Economic Community and UTA happens to be the airline of France, a principal in the EEC. Likewise with Holland and KLM. If we turn to the ASEAN situation we have the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) saying in Perth only a fortnight ago that Australia’s relationships and influences are being judged more directly by the countries of the region in terms of our capacity to contribute to economic co-operation.

Clearly negotiations with countries between London and Australia are very much linked up with foreign policy. It could well be that foreign policy in respect of other activities will be more important than where we rate in aviation priorities with those countries. Yet in the report and in the Minister’s statement today scant mention has been made of the very serious implications involved there. With the EEC we had a trade last year of $4,5 18m, with ASEAN countries $1,4 10m. Both those areas will determine their relationships with Australia more on economic co-operation and trade than on airlines alone. I refer the Minister to page 262 of Volume I of the report. It states that most air service agreements can be terminated only with 12 months notice. I would have thought that the Minister would have mentioned that in his speech.

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

Mr Morris:

– I seek an extension to speak for the appropriate time.

Mr Hodges:

– I move:

Mr Morris:

– On a point of order, an arrangement was made that I would be allowed to speak for the same time that the Minister took in making his statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That arrangement is no immediate concern of the Chair. There is not a motion before the House.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, could I put the request for an extension of time through you to the Minister?

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the honourable member for Shortland be allowed to proceed under whatever is the appropriate rule of the House.

Motion (by Mr Scholes) agreed to:

That the honourable member for Shortland be granted an extension of time.

Mr MORRIS:

-I thank the House and the Minister. On page 262 of Volume I of the report it states that most air service agreements can be terminated only with 12 months notice. Because of the importance of that sentence I would have thought that it would have been mentioned in the Minister’s speech. It goes on to say in that paragraph:

The Governments of those countries would make strong representatives and may use other political or economic means to express their dissatisfaction.

I mention this in relation to ASEAN and to the EEC. It is quite clear from statements made and visits to Australia recently that there will be further actions if what I believe is going to happen in respect of the Government’s policy on this issue does take place. There will be retaliation. The report goes on at paragraph 9.2.4, when dealing with full economies, to say that full economies may not be reflected in fare reductions for up to 2 years. Again, I would have thought that this would have been spelt out in a more detailed way, a more specific way to put things in their proper perspective. Later in paragraph 9.2.5 these words appear:

The committee has not discussed this aspect with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations as the incidence and spread of staff reductions cannot be determined precisely ahead of a government decision.

The reference there was to the fact that there could be staff dismissals with the implementation of a change in policy. Again I want to emphasise the fact that it appears to the Opposition in this matter that the relevant departments which should have been deeply involved right from the very beginning have not been involved, namely, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister nods his head. However, there has not been any evidence to date of direct foreign policy involvement. The Minister himself stated on 2 October: ‘There have been no consultations with the ASEAN nations.’ I accept his statement. If it is not correct then he has told a mistruth but they are his words. Let us compare that with the United Kingdom and with the United States of America. In the case of the USA on issues such as this, senior officials of the State Department must be present at discussions. In the United Kingdom officials of the Foreign Office must be present. Here we have this report and it is quite obvious that there has not been top level representation from the Department of Foreign Affairs when these discussions have taken place. I turn to page 264 of the report and the concluding comments:

The Committee believes the Government should consider whether any policy change should not be subject to review within a period of, say, no more than live years.

Again I want to pin point the Minister’s failure to grasp the complexity and magnitude of the changes in aviation policy. When he announced this review his words were: ‘The policy the report recommends will determine the Government’s policy for the next 20 years. ‘ It was only 1 5 years out because the report says: ‘We must look at it again in five years and Qantas must be looked at again within three years.’ Here again is a failure to understand and to grasp what is involved. In my concluding minutes I turn to the Pacific scene. I think it is a pity from Australia ‘s viewpoint that the approach of the Government has been to attempt to browbeat American airlines into agreeing to what this Government wants to implement across the Pacific. I would have preferred to see some kind of conciliatory approach, some form of getting together. I happened to be in America when some of the statements were made in Australia and they did not fool anybody. Just like the peanut and the pumpkin, it does not have any effect. It might be good copy back in Australia but it does nothing to enhance Australia’s stature abroad with that kind of approach. If we are serious in stating that the United States offers a major potential source for tourist traffic to Australia and that we are looking to the United States to see people come in large numbers to this country to develop our tourist industry, it is a funny way to go about winning them to Australia.

Let me say in respect of what has happened on the regulatory scene in America to date about the effects of the new approach of introducing a little bit of competition- not too much, just prizing open the door in a free enterprise country and letting in some competition in the aviation scene- the results have been tremendous. It is quite inaccurate- as has been stated here in Australia- that it has been a failure. It has been a resounding success. There has been an increase of about 30 per cent in traffic across the Atlantic and an enormous increase in domestic air travel within the United States. It is sheer mischievousness to tell people in this country that lower air fares in the United States and a less regulatory approach there have been a failure. The opposite is the truth.

When the Minister is negotiating with the United States on a nation-to-nation basis, the Opposition would like him to put forward a more responsible, conciliatory and informative approach to the negotiations. We want to see more tourists in Australia. We want to see a maximisation of the traffic. The days in the aviation industry of fixing the capacity first and forcing a market to fit the capacity have gone. We should be about expanding the market and then looking at a review of the capacity. In conclusion, I remind the Government that civil aviation was invented for the benefit of people, not for the benefit of governments. I am confident that the people of this country will be properly dissatisfied with the report that has been presented today. They will view it as a catalogue of reasons why cheaper international air fares will not be available in the reasonably near future.

Mr Hodges:

– I apologise to the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). I thought that he had had equal time. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1709

GOVERNMENT’S OVERSEAS BORROWING PROGRAM

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Mr Speaker has received letters from both the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, Mr Speaker has selected one matter, that is that proposed by the honourable member for Adelaide, namely:

The Fraser Government’s failure to justify its vast overseas borrowing program.

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

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Our country’s economy is drifting deeper and deeper into depression. The conservatives who rule us, namely, those members of the Liberal and National Country parties who sit opposite, have not got the answers to the grave economic problems which face our country. Their policies are wrong. As every day goes by those policies are seen more clearly to be wrong. The magnificent vote for Labor last Saturday in New South Wales shows that the Australian people now realise increasingly that the conservatives’ economic policies are wrong. The time is overdue for the policies to be changed or for the Fraser Government to resign. The time of lying to the people about the realities of our economy must cease. This Parliament is the forum in our country where all the issues of concern to the Australian people must be raised without fear. I raise without apology the sensitive issues of Australia’s reserves, Australia’s balance of payments, on which we had a report today from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia’s balance of trade on which we had a report yesterday, and Australia’s overseas borrowing, on which we had a statement last Friday from the Treasurer (Mr Howard), whom I am glad to see in the House. The Labor Opposition in this national Parliament would be neglecting its duty if it did not probe the Fraser Government on this vital area of national policy making.

The Australian people are not concerned only about unemployment. Labor has at last flushed out the Government on that grave issue. Some of our opponents at last are facing the truth on that issue because of the work we have done in flushing them out. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has come clean on the true facts about that issue. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has been forced similarly to come clean on that issue, if only in a half-hearted way. But that is not the only issue in relation to the Australian economy. The Australian people are also gravely concerned about our reserves. Are we paying our way as a nation? That is a question that legitimately should be asked. Why is there the need for these vast borrowings overseas? It is time the Fraser Government was flushed out and forced to come clean on that issue too.

Why is it that these same people who made such an issue of overseas borrowings at the time of the Whitlam Government are seen so clearly to be indulging in those practices which they criticised so severely just three years ago? That is one of the serious questions being asked today by so many of the Australian people. Could it be because they were lying to the Australian people at the time of the so-called loans affair? The evidence points to that. Did they mislead the Australian people then? Or is it because circumstances have changed? Is it because their policies have led to a worsening of our balance of trade? Are we now importing more than we are exporting? Has their policy of devaluation two years ago been a disaster? Are we paying out too much on invisibles- freight, insurance and so on? Have the conservatives who rule us no policy in this area to save us from making these large invisible payments month after month? Is this why our reserves have been dropping? Is this why we have had to embark on this borrowing program, the latest announcement being made by the Treasurer only last Friday? Or is the crisis due to the Fraser Government-promoted stagnation in another way? Because our level of economic activity is so low, does this mean that overseas investors have no confidence in us? There is no capital coming in for real income and job producing programs. Traditionally we have covered our adverse balance of payments in this way. We are no longer able to do so because of the Fraser Government-promoted lack of confidence, not only in this country but also on the part of those who would properly invest in this country. We have no inflow of overseas capital. Is that the problem? Or is it a combination of all the factors raised in the questions I have just put to the House?

We of the Labor Opposition have our answers to those questions, and I will indicate some of the answers as the debate progresses. But our important function today is to flush out from the Government the answers to these grave questions. It is the Liberal and National Country party members, or in particular the Fraser Government Ministers, who must be put on the spot, who must face the facts and face the truth. For it is only when we force them to face reality, or to resign, that we shall achieve the necessary change to correct policies for our country. In other words, until we as a nation face reality, or in particular until the Government faces reality, we shall not adopt correct economic policies or any other policies. Let us have a little realism from the Government today in this debate on our overseas position. Will the Treasurer come clean on this issue, as we forced the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to come clean on the issue of unemployment? For the sake of our nation, will the Treasurer please come clean in this debate today?

Here are some of the facts which have prompted this debate. Yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics issued the latest figures on our balance of trade. Exports and imports were both covered. The results for the month of September were the worst for many years. The results for the quarter ended September were the worst for well over four years, namely, since the height of the international recession. Let me highlight how serious the situation is by quoting a few figures. For the quarter ended September 1977 there was a surplus of $276m; for the quarter ended December 1977, a surplus of $402m; for the quarter ended March 1978, a surplus of $27 lm; and for the quarter ended June 1978, a surplus of $104m. Those figures related only to the balance of trade. I am not taking into account the very serious invisibles figure. However, in spite of this surplus of trade for the quarters I have mentioned, we find that in the September 1978 quarter, the results for which were announced yesterday, there was a deficit of $4m on the balance of trade alone. For the month of September the deficit alone was $72m.

In the Budget Papers we learned that the Government was expecting a current account deficit of $3,000m for the 1977-78 financial year. The noted merchant bankers and international economic commentators, Hill Samuel Australia Ltd, are now predicting that Australia’s current account deficit will be closer to $4,000 m than $3,000m in the current financial year. A second fact that must be faced is that, in spite of overseas borrowings, our reserves have run down in the last four weeks by an amount approximating $200m. Is that realistic? A headline in one newspaper states: ‘Dogs barking as Fraser ponders’. The gold and foreign exchange reserves have taken such a pounding that they are below the crucial $3,000m mark. The figures show that at the close of business last Wednesday reserves stood at $2, 986. 8m, which is $66.5m less than the figure the Wednesday before. But this amount includes a $35m boost from the month’s revaluation of gold so that the underlying change just for that week ending Wednesday was a drop of $10 1.5m. This drop follows falls of $70m and $92m in the previous two weeks. That means that there have been only two weeks since the end of April when there has been an increase in the underlying change in the holdings.

I have taken this information from newspapers and government releases. I hope that no one is going to make the charge in this debate or at any other time or will suggest in any way that it is not the proper function of the Opposition to flush out these facts and to seek from responsible Ministers a reaction to these sorts of facts that are being published in newspapers and are being canvassed round the country generally.

The balance of payments figures that I mentioned earlier were released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They paint a similarly gloomy picture- an adverse balance of $85m for September and of $205m for the three months ended September 1978. The greatest tragedy of those figures, month after month, quarter after quarter, is the net figure for invisibles- freight insurance and so on. I would like to hear from the Government as to what it intends to do about this large pay-out. What is its policy to ensure that this country is not drained more and more by these invisible figures?

A third part of this problem which has to be faced is contained in the Treasurer’s statement of last Friday about borrowings. Over and above the $2.5 billion-that is, $2,500m-which the Fraser Government has already borrowed since it took office, it is now borrowing a further $600m from the Japanese. What is the explanation to justify the borrowing of such a vast sum? We have not heard one in this House. A proper explanation has not been given in any Press release that I have seen. At the same time I ask: What is the explanation for the haste surrounding that announcement? What is the reason for the premature announcement before the terms and conditions of the loan had been finalised? Is this an indication of concern? If so, should we not learn about that concern in this Parliament?

To highlight the vast extent of these overseas borrowings by the Fraser Government, let me give some more salient facts. Last financial year the Fraser Government borrowed $ 1 , 750m overseas. So far this year it has announced borrowings worth over $ 1,000m. The announcement relating to the Japanese loans is only the latest of a long line of borrowings. Total government borrowings overseas has now reached the level where the Government owes foreign financiers $280 for each man, woman and child in this country, compared with only $90 a head when the Fraser Government took over in November 1 975. That does not include the proposed $600m Japanese loans. If we take them into consideration, for each man, woman and child in this country, we are going to be owing $320 as against the $90 at the time the Fraser Government came to office.

Mr Howard:

-Did you say $320?

Mr HURFORD:

-Yes, $320 as against $90. 1 again ask: What is the reason for this extraordinary state of affairs? How do we reconcile this situation with- this is just one example- the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on the AM program after the devaluation in November 1976. The Prime Minister said:

Is there a man here who would say they would sooner put Australia into hock to the tune of $ 1,000m rather than devalue?

This was said by the man who proposes to put us into hock to the tune of $3,000m before this year is out. On top of putting us into hock to this extent, he has devalued the currency. Those words were said by the man who so cynically made such a thing of the ‘loans affair’. At least the negotiations that were conducted in that instance were for the purpose of developing this great country and of” keeping its ownership in Australian hands. To date there is no such purpose to be seen in relation to the Fraser Government ‘s proposed borrowings of $3,000m. All the Prime Minister is doing is shoring up the reserves, which have been plummeting downwards because of his Government’s inept performance, its gross economic mismanagement.

Is the latest premature borrowings announcement to stop speculation? If so, let us hear the facts. On the This Day Tonight program on 2 December 1976 the Prime Minister, when justifying the then devaluation policy, said:

Now nobody could guarantee that borrowing $ 1,000m would stop the speculation.

What has changed? Are we ricocheting from one shoot from the hip policy to another? That is a genuine and legitimate question.

The fourth set of facts which must be faced relates to the repayment of these vast loans. Under a Labor government there would be some expansion, some development, so that the necessary funds would be generated for repayments. Under the conservatives, we have stagnation. The repayments and the interest on this debt are going to be a substantial drain on future Budgets. By 1981-82 repayments of existing borrowings amounting to $53 lm will have to be made and interest payments will require at least $250m a year. If we have any more devaluations of the Australian dollar compared with the borrowed currencies, the position will be even worse. The amounts needed to meet these debts will be increased. These enormous costs add up to another reason why the Treasurer is duty bound to tell the Australian people, through this

House, why this is being done. We give him that opportunity in this debate on this matter of public importance.

The nation is entitled to know whether the Government expects an improvement in our balance of payments situation in the near future and, if so, by what amount. If an improvement is expected, what will cause the turn-around? I have already shown that the Hill Samuel organisation expects the opposite, namely, a worsening of the situation. The Labor Opposition believes that there will be a turn-around in the present depression prognosis only if there is a change in policy. We are not the only people who are concerned about this matter. On my desk yesterday was a copy of Canberra Comments, a publication of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. I quote from that document. Under the heading ‘Balance of Payment’, the document states:

In the Chamber’s opinion too much reliance was being placed on a revival of foreign investment to help balance our external accounts. In the meantime there was a limit to the extent that the balance of payments could be underpinned by official borrowings.

There we have one of the Government’s great supporters- the Australian Chamber of Commerce- making the same point that I am making in this debate and in so doing I am giving the Treasurer the opportunity to respond. We reject the present stagnation economic policy. We believe that the country requires an expansionary policy. We want to stop the present drift.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– There are few subjects which require such sensitive and non-rhetorical treatment as those involving the international credit of this country and the operation of this country’s external economic policy, as this subject does. This matter of public importance is about the alleged failure of the Government to justify its overseas borrowing program. I thought it interesting that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) canvassed our borrowing program almost as an afterthought, doing so about two-thirds of the way through his speech.

If one were listening to a debate on this subject for the first time, one could be forgiven for believing that the Opposition had just discovered that it is part of the policy of this Government to borrow substantial amounts overseas on official account. There is nothing new about this policy. This policy has been in place. It has been stated publicly as being in place. It has been frequently referred to and frequently reaffirmed by spokesmen for this Government over a period of about 18 months. I take the honourable member for Adelaide back to a statement that was made by my predecessor, the right honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch), on 25 August 1977 when he announced an on-going borrowing program by the Government and to a statement made on 27 September 1977 by the then Minister Assisting the Treasurer in which he announced borrowings of about $850m over and above that on-going borrowing program. On 5 February this year I issued a detailed statement on Australia’s external economic position. The statement read:

The Treasurer said that he wanted to make it quite clear that, should any additional supplementation of Australia’s international reserves be required in support of the Australian dollar, the Government would not hesitate to undertake substantial further borrowings over and above this planned program.

Through the latter half of 1977-78, as the honourable member for Adelaide well knows, this Government continued to borrow significant sums on official account. So the first thing I would say to the House is that there is nothing new about the fact that this Government is borrowing substantial sums on official account to supplement our reserves. Suggestion that the Opposition has flushed out and discovered something that we have been concealing from the Australian people makes me think that it is Rip Van Winkle from Adelaide who has been completely oblivious to what has been happening in the conduct of this country’s external economic policies over the past 18 months. We have made no secret of the fact that, given current economic circumstances and pending the resumption of higher levels of private capital inflow, it is entirely appropriate that this Government should borrow significant amounts on official account. The fact that we are able to borrow these amounts should be, in one respect anyway, a matter of some satisfaction. It indicates the enormous respect in which the Australian Government and this country are held. It indicates, I suggest, the respect that the policies which are being pursued at the present time by this Government are attracting. The credit worthiness of this country in international money institutions ought to be a matter of satisfaction and not a matter of carping whingeing criticism.

As a second proposition I say to the House that not only is there no secret- and there has not been any secret for the past 18 months- that it is part of our policy to borrow significant amounts overseas, but it is an indication of the international credit worthiness of Australia, and it is something which is wholly consistent with the economic circumstances of Australia at the present time. It is something that we believe is to the benefit of the Australian economy in the present circumstances. Nobody denies, as indeed the honourable member for Adelaide pointed out, that we live in a very difficult trading world. I think he recognises that, as the Opposition spokesman on trade matters. It is something that my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has referred to frequently. We do live in difficult international trading circumstances.

One of the great problems of this country remains our lack of international competitiveness. I do not think the honourable member for Adelaide wants me to remind him too frequently of what our lack of international competitiveness is all about. It is all about the fact that the domestic cost structure of this country is still far too high. The principal reason it is far too high is that a few years ago we started to pay ourselves more money than in effect our productivity justified, and we are still suffering the consequences. If the honourable member wants to know the real reason we do not have a more comfortable differential between imports and exports then I would put to him that it is the cumulative effect of the way in which our international competitiveness has declined.

The adjustment is a slow process and the adjustment process is further compounded by the general sluggishness of world trade, a sluggishness which, on all the indications, is not going to disappear quickly. The situation is going to improve slowly and in the meantime there is a strong imperative on this Government to do what it can not just to equal the economic and trading performance of our partners with which comparisons legitimately can be made but to try to out-perform our trading partners, to have a tougher and more competitive domestic economy, to be more successful in reducing our domestic cost structure and to be more successful in reducing our rate of inflation. Those are the objectives to which our economic policies are directed. But in the meantime it is necessary for us to have appropriate external economic policies- external policies that recognise the difficulties of the world trading scene.

This country for many years has been a net importer of capital, as the honourable member for Adelaide knows. There is nothing new about the fact that the Government of this country borrows money overseas on official account to supplement our reserves.lt is something that has occurred not just in the last 18 months; it is something that governments from time to time have done. I would just like to put a few facts on the table about the size and scope of those borrowings because the honourable member for Adelaide mentioned $324 as being the per person debt after the completion of the latest yen package. That figure is correct. I do not dispute that figure but I put it in context. I point out to the honourable member that after the present package of yen borrowings has been completed the Commonwealth’s external debt will amount to about 5 per cent of the gross domestic product compared with 6.5 per cent of our GDP a decade ago. Was anybody saying a decade ago that 6.5 per cent of our GDP was too great an external debt? Does the honourable member for Adelaide know that the percentage of GDP to our external debt now is lower than it was 10 years ago? Does he realise that the relevant percentage for export income in 1977-78 is 38.3 per cent whereas 10 years ago it was 53.2 per cent? Did he lay those facts on the table? Did he come clean with the Parliament and the Australian people when he talked in rhetorical terms about the $324 per head debt? Did he come clean with those figures? I suggest to the honourable member that if we are to have a serious debate about a serious subject that affects us all on both sides of the House we ought to put all of the facts on the table. I think some of these facts are extremely relevant.

I point out to the honourable member for Adelaide that of course the question of exchange fluctuations so far as international borrowings are concerned is important. I think the House might want to know- and this is particularly relevant in respect of the yen borrowing- that an analysis of the composition of the Commonwealth’s overseas debt by foreign currencies reveals that prior to the recent yen package- and I will come to the situation after the yen packagethe break-up was as follows: United States dollars, 46 per cent; Deutsche mark, 26 per cent; yen, 6 per cent; Swiss francs, 12 per cent; and Dutch guilder, 7 per cent. As a result of the recent yen borrowing the yen component will be 19.7 per cent, which is significantly below the denomination of our overseas debt in United States dollars. I think that these are facts of which the House ought to be aware.

I would just like to dwell on two other things. Firstly, the honourable member for Adelaide is concerned about capital going out of Australia. That is a very legitimate concern for an Opposition spokesman on trade matters. If ever anything was calculated to drive overseas capital out of this country it was the alternative budget proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr

Hayden), a budget which would have destroyed the anti-inflationary strategy that this Government has followed over the past two-and-a-half years, a budget which would have renewed suspicion by overseas investors that this country had lost its economic nerve as far as getting the fundamentals right and a budget which would have renewed wage pressures. It spent about a paragraph and a half on wages policy and what was said about wages policy represented complete non-recognition of the facts of economic life. If ever an economic policy is calculated to undermine this country’s international economic respectability it is one which ignores the reality that until we get the fundamentals of this economy right, and unless we have the nerve to persevere with getting them right, we are not going to survive and prosper in extremely difficult world economic conditions.

The second thing that I would like to say about the speech of the honourable member for Adelaide is that he referred only fleetingly to the activities of the former Government in the area of overseas loans. I do not want to go into that in detail- far be it from me to do so- but let me say two things very quickly about it. As he well knows, it was not just a question of the relevance of borrowings of that order to policy at the time that concerned the then Opposition. It was the lack of orthodoxy, the possibly lack of legality and the odd way in which a country, which had proven before that and has proven since that it can be a successful borrower in an orthodox manner on official account, acted through little known intermediaries. It was the presence of those elements which caused the then Opposition its principal concern. Surely the honourable member for Adelaide does not suggest for a moment that one can draw any comparison at all between what occurred then and what has occurred now. Of course, the borrowing program of the present Government is done in accordance with the most orthodox, proper and legal means, and any suggestion that any comparison can be drawn between the activities of some of his former ministerial leaders and what has occurred over the past 18 months is not really doing the honourable member for Adelaide justice or credit.

I conclude simply by saying that over the past 18 months this Government has followed a policy of borrowing substantial amounts on official account to supplement our international reserves. That policy is both appropriate and desirable in current circumstances. It is consistent v,:th the objects of our external policy, having regard to the difficulties and restraints under which we are operating. Naturally the Government believes that there should be no secret about the need to do this in circumstances that require it. We have not been flushed out on this subject. We have been totally open about both the reasons for and the size of our international borrowings. As long ago as 20 months or more the Government made it clear that we would be embarking upon a substantial program of overseas borrowings. We gave our reasons then and we repeated them earlier this year. They were referred to again in the Budget Speech and they are constantly referred to when announcements of overseas borrowings are made by the Government. So far from there being any lack of explanation by this Government, I do not believe that the honourable member for Adelaide has made out a case for explanation.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-What the Opposition wanted in this debate was an explanation of why the Government has embarked on this massive loan raising exercise and an indication of how long we can expect it to continue to be borrowing money overseas in such vast amounts. We did not get from the Treasurer (Mr Howard) an adequate explanation of that. What we got was a recitation of previous announcements. What we got was simply an announcement of what has already happened. I do not think that is good enough for either this Parliament or the Australian people. I think that this is a fundamentally crucial question, and the Opposition has not raised it frivolously. We realise that it is a sensitive issue, and what we were seeking from the Government was some explanation as to how much longer we can expect this sort of activity to be going on and against what background we can expect it to be going on.

Before getting to the core of the argument I want to respond to a couple of the quaint explanations which the Treasurer gave. For instance, he blamed the poor position of Australia’s current account on the fact that we have priced ourselves out of the market and that our internal cost structure had increased too rapidly. I would be very intrigued to discover from the Treasurer how he thinks that the internal cost structure has influenced our trade in commodities as it has been in the area of trade in commodities which has particularly adversely influenced our balance on current account.

The point is that the internal cost structure has not had any bearing at all on the declining value of our commodity sales. Again I would be intrigued to know how the internal cost structure has had a crucial bearing on the invisibles component, which continues to be of such massive proportions. The internal cost structure has very little to do with the extent of the invisible payments, which have always been a great burden to this country. The Treasurer said that he thought it was entirely proper for Australia to be moving away from United States dollars into yen in the loan raising in which the Government is engaging.

Mr Howard:

– I did not say that.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The Treasurer said that he thought that under the circumstances it was reasonable to increase the proportion of the loan raisings in yen.

Mr Howard:

– A reasonable mix.

Mr DAWKINS:

– That is right. The point is that we do not have to do that by expanding our loan raisings. That can be done within the context of the existing level of borrowings by switching around the currency in which those borrowings are held. So that itself is not an adequate explanation. Indeed it would be better to hold borrowings in US dollars, because the Australian currency is in fact improving against the US dollar and is declining markedly against the yen. So it is more expensive for us to be paying the interest in yen rather than in US dollars. I think that on those couple of points the Treasurer was less than candid in his explanation to this House.

What the Opposition has tried to do today is to focus some attention on the balance of payments situation, which is one of unrelieved gloom. I do not think that anyone would dispute that claim. I guess in the context of the general state of the economy that the gloom on the balance of payment situation would surprise no one, but it is serious to the extent that it reveals the failure of the Government’s economic strategy because if the Government’s economic strategy were beginning to work we would have expected one of the first signs of that success to be in our overseas transactions. It is not necessary for me to remind the House that this Government’s strategy is based very firmly on the hope that there will be an increase in the amount of inflow of overseas capital, because we have been told that as a result of an increased flow of foreign private capital into this country there will be an increase in investment and, therefore, an expansion of job opportunities. In fact the situation which is unfolding is exactly the reverse of what one would have expected had the Government’s economic strategy begun to work. We find that the balance on the current account continues to be strongly negative and that it is substantially worse in the September quarter of 1978 than it was in the September quarter of 1977. Indeed, in the last three months there, has been a progression of larger deficits.

As the honourable member for Adelaide has correctly pointed out, Australia’s international liquidity continues to decline. It has now fallen below $3,000m and is falling currently at the rate of $63m a week. The Australian dollar, of course, is now worth 10 per cent less than it was worth 15 months ago, and crucially the level of capital inflow into this country, although higher than at this time last year, has in fact been falling since the introduction of the Budget, the prime aim of which was to encourage the inflow of foreign private capital. I think that that last statistic is very interesting because it reveals that the Budget has not had the desired impact. It should be seen also in the context of the report from Hill Samuel Australia Ltd to which the honourable member for Adelaide referred. Hill Samuel does not expect there to be an increase in the level of private capital coming into Australia in the near future. The latest annual figures available show that for the 12 months to June 1977 there was an inflow of $1.3 billion and that for the 12 months to June 1978 the inflow was only about $342m. I think that in this area a very serious problem exists, because it reveals that a fundamental and important plank of this Government’s economic strategy is in fact falling to pieces.

What is the Government proposing to do about this problem? We have seen that its response to the deteriorating situation of our current account, which of course has been exacerbated by the fact that the inflow of private capital has not been what the Government expected it to be, has been to move to borrow quite massively overseas. It will shortly have in the order of $4,000m of overseas borrowings. I think it is important that I say that the Opposition is not ideologically opposed to overseas borrowings. What it is opposed to is the way in which the borrowing has been done and the lack of explanation that has been given. I say quite frankly that the Labor Party is not opposed to borrowing money from overseas for the purpose of job creation in this country; but that is not what this Government is on about. Where is the investment which the Government has been able to inspire as a result of these massive borrowings?

What has to be remembered is that if there were some investment in this country of those foreign loans at least we would have some way of servicing the massive debt which we will have to face up to in the near future. The honourable member for Adelaide pointed out that the repayments which will be a charge on the Budget very soon will be in the order of $500m a year. That will have a very important impact on the domestic economy. When those repayments become due it will have a very important impact on the size and shape of the Budget. I think that these are the questions about which the Government really has not come clean. It really has not told us for how long we will be borrowing at this level and how it intends to service those debts in the years to come.

The solutions to these problems, I admit, are not simple. One of the ways in which some action has to be taken is to attempt to reduce the deficit on the current account. I am bound to say in passing that this problem is not helped by the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) approving a price cut in our iron ore that is shipped to Japan. That will only exacerbate an already serious problem. Secondly, some action is obviously needed in the area of the inflow of private capital. That is the one objective which the Government has confidently set for itself, and yet it is an area in which the Government has been shown clearly to have failed. What this really reveals is the isolation of this Government from the rest of the world economy. The policies of this Government are quite out of tune with most of the major economies. So long as we continue to follow those, policies this economy will be left high and dry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-The Opposition’s matter of public importance today stands exposed as an exercise in cant and hypocrisy, barefaced effrontery and unashamed humbug. Who would have thought for one moment that so soon after the evil event the Opposition would have had the gall to bring into this chamber a debate on the question of overseas loans? It demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt the massive guilt complex of the Australian Labor Party with respect to the loans affair of 13 December 1974 and thereafter. It proves once again that the ghosts of Khemlani, signed and unsigned letters of introduction, Iraqi breakfasts, temporary purposes and midnight clandestine deals with the financial prostitutes of the world in darkened alleyways still loom large in the minds of members of the Opposition. They do not seem to be able to remember the details of constitutional conspiracy, deceit and deception, incompetence and irregularity.

Colleagues of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) got their fingers caught in the till. I believe that after today the honourable member for Adelaide ought to be called Honey Hurford ‘ because if ever anybody got his fingers caught in the honey jar today it was him for having the effrontery to bring such a poppycock matter of public importance into this House. With his frequent references to ‘flushing out’, he reminded me a little of the man who one morning by mistake took Harpic instead of Eno ‘s salts and went clean round the bend. The honourable member repeatedly talked about flushing out this and flushing out that. He does not have to flush very hard because today we have a Treasurer who, and a government which makes public all dealings in relation to overseas loans. The honourable member needs just to pick up a Press statement issued by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and dated 6 September 1978. He will see in chapter and verse the dealings and details of proposed loans from the Deutsche Bank, which is certainly not a backyard procurer of finance and certainly not an intermediary of finance such as those intermediaries with which the Labor Government dealt.

It is all in the Press statement in black and white. The honourable member can see the interest rates, the terms and the details. If he is not happy with that information, he can look at the next Press release, No. 105, which was issued on 5 October. He will see that the Government has been negotiating loans with organisations such as the Long Term Credit Bank, the Mitsubishi Trust and Banking Co. and the Nippon Life Insurance Co. These are not Khemlanis; they are not backyard financiers; they are not midnighters. We deal in the open. We are a government which will continue to deal in the open so that the people can see exactly what is going on. What is wrong with the Labor Party? It seems to equate loans with the number of people in the population. What an extraordinary proposition! It is not a question of per capita; it is a question of the capacity to repay; it is a question of the credit rating of the nation. Thank God, Australia now has a AAA credit rating. It did not have it in 1974; it did not have it in 1975.I believe that it is due to the proper policies of our Government, to the integrity of our Treasurers since we came back to power in 1975 and to the rectitude of our economic planning that we have that AAA credit rating.

What is the position? As the Treasurer said, at present the Commonwealth’s external debtthat is, taking into account the end borrowingswill amount to 5 per cent of the gross domestic product. This compares with 6.5 per cent a decade ago. More importantly, I believe, with all due respect to the Treasurer, is the fact that the relevant percentage for export income would be 38.3 per cent at 1977-78 levels compared with 53.2 per cent a decade ago. What is the Opposition on about? The honourable member for Adelaide admitted that Australia’s reserves, balance of payments, balance of trade and overseas borrowings are sensitive issues. What is the Opposition trying to do in this matter of public importance today?

I do not like to rake over coals so I will do no more than to remind the Parliament and the nation that it was on 4 October 1977 that this House took the most unprecedented step of formally censuring one of its members for his economic subversion and total irresponsibility with respect to the strength and standing of the Australian dollar. I refer to that incident because it involved a formal censure by this House of the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who is now the Leader of the Opposition. It ill behoves the honourable member for Adelaide and his colleague to come into this chamber in such a gloomy way, as Jonahs and Jerimiahs, and to knock and whinge. They are talking about total overseas borrowings in excess of $2,000m. They did not seem to be too keen to talk about proposed borrowings of $4,000m for temporary purposes; they did not seem to be too concerned at that time about what they were doing to Australia. I want to quote from a couple of speeches which were recorded in 1975 just to see how they line up with what we have heard this afternoon. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), in an epic speech on 9 July 1975, which is recorded on page 3642 of Hansard of that date, quotes the present Leader of the Opposition as saying:

The Australian Government’s international reputation as a prime borrower is such that it does not need to use any form of intermediary. In the past it has always confined overseas loan negotiations to dealing directly with principals; leading financial institutions in overseas capital markets.

That is what he said. What did the former Treasurer, Mr Crean, say? He said:

Australia should -

Mr Dawkins:

– What has this to do with it?

Mr HODGMAN:

– I know the honourable member does not like this. He is one of the guilty ones. He was in the Parliament then. He was removed later and he is back again now. He was one of the guilty ones. The honourable member has a guilty conscience. Yet he has the gall to come in here and preach to us about the propriety of borrowing overseas. A former Treasurer, Mr Crean, said:

Australia should, I suggest, carefully preserve its reputation as a steady and cautious borrower on official account. (Quorum formed).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Before the honourable member for Denison resumes his speech I would remind him that the matter before the Chair is the Fraser Government’s failure to justify its vast overseas borrowings program. I would suggest that the honourable member should keep his remarks relevant to that subject.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Certainly, sir. In fact, I make the point that, unlike with those who had the effrontery to bring this matter into the chamber today and those who covered up and who dealt by darkness and at night time, we now have a Government, a Treasurer and a group of people running this country who make it quite clear what are their dealings. We do not go round in the middle of the night dealing with people whom I have described as the financial prostitutes of the world.

In order to demonstrate my point, I refer again to the epic speech of the honourable member for Wentworth in 1975. He said:

Why was it that this Executive Council Minute approved a borrowing of $4,000m for temporary purposes when the borrowing was known to be and was intended to be a longterm borrowing for long-term purposes? How did the Governor-General come to approve a resolution for such temporary purposes when the borrowing was for indefinite purposes? What was the reaction of the Treasury?

Nobody has asked those questions about our last two loans. Nobody has had to stand in this House and say: ‘For what are you borrowing Deutsche marks and yen on the basis of temporary purposes?’ Nobody has thrown one jot of suspicion against this Government. I believe it is contemptible for the honourable member for Adelaide and his colleagues to come into this House today and endeavour to impugn the integrity of the present Treasurer. The implication was that we do in 1978 what they did in 1974 and 1975 and nothing could be further from the truth. The Government emerges from the discussion of this matter of public importance with its reputation untarnished despite the attacks of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

page 1718

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AT MARALINGA

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave- In the 1950s a series of nuclear tests was conducted in this country by the United Kingdom Government. The tests were conducted pursuant to a memorandum of arrangements between Australia and the United Kingdom. Following administrative changes my Department became the principal repository for the records of this subject. This process was completed in 1974. The Minister for Defence has since that time been ministerially responsible for those records. It would seem that rumour, innuendo and conveniently selective recollection place an obligation upon me every six months or so to seek to quieten public agitation which is fomented with respect to the Maralinga tests. The motives of the activists seem, at best, curious.

I emphasise that the records I am dealing with are precisely the same records that have been available to the last several Australian governments. The records have not been added to or subtracted from. Precisely the same historical information is there as existed during the Whitlam Labor Governments. The honourable members for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), Wills (Mr Bryant), Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), Capricornia (Dr Everingham), Oxley (Mr Hayden), Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), Blaxland (Mr Keating), Grayndler (Mr Stewart) and Reid (Mr Uren) and Senators Bishop, Cavanagh, Wheeldon and Wriedt still remain in this Parliament. I repeat that the information I draw upon is the same information that was available to them- no more, no less.

A government led by Mr Whitlam established the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council, which is referred to as AIRAC. That body superseded the Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee. AIRAC endorsed proposals concerning the Maralinga area. It recommended to the Minister for Environment of the day- that is, the present honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass)- and the recommendations put before the honourable gentleman were accepted by him and clearly by the then Government. I mention this not in any sense of political conflict but to illustrate the fact. The honourable gentleman- that is, the honourable member for

Maribymong- could scarcely have taken the decision he did without the consideration of all relevant information, that is, the consideration of the records available to the Government of which he was a member, and to this Government.

Governments and Ministers clearly have a duty to be concerned with the national interest. There are those who scoff at that interest but the scoffing serves no more noble purpose than to indulge a lively and vulgar sense of personal vanity. For myself, and I am certain that I speak for all people of reason, I cannot see that the national interest is aided one jot by wild allegations and rumours relating to the Maralinga experiments.

I will try once more to put some of the more conspicuous of these allegations and rumours to rest. There is no unexploded device buried at Maralinga. I trust there is no ambiguity about that. Investigation has turned up no evidence that nuclear waste from power stations in Britain- or from any other country- was buried at Maralinga or anywhere else in Australia. There were not 800 tonnes of nuclear waste buried at Maralinga, nor anything remotely approaching that amount. There is no evidence, no logic and certainly no credible hypothesis to support an accusation, so dear to the imagination of the former Deputy Leader of the Oppositionthat is, the honourable member for Reid- that the British broke the moratorium on atomic explosions in the atmosphere in the period from 1958 to 1961.

The first atomic explosion in Australia occurred 26 years ago last week, and the last occurred 21 years ago this week. There were subsequently some experiments on radioactive substances related to nuclear weapons technology but no further atomic explosions. I emphasise the words ‘no further atomic explosions’. I emphasise those words because the Melbourne Age newspaper, commenting editorially today, had some difficulty distinguishing between an atomic explosion qua atomic explosion and nuclear experimentation. I do not complain about that fact. However, one gets a little weary of being catechised and criticised when some of the authors themselves are not too bright on fundamental science. This point has been made clear many times before, though I notice that even today comment which is usually notable for its accuracy in matters has confused this matter. If a newspaper can confuse the matter in its editorial, which I take it would be written by the leader writers as a reflective, contemplative collection of words, there would be many other people of goodwill and reason who would be confused.

Maralinga is an area which on all the extensive evidence so far compiled is safe for most ordinary purposes excepting long-term occupation of a few localities. It is an area where there will be an on-going task, which this Government is addressing, of long-term management brought about principally by the burials in the area of a total of about 20 kilograms of plutonium. All of that and much more has been made plain before. It is a matter of regret that men who were members of Whitlam Labor governmentsgovernments led by Mr Whitlam and administrations which professed a close interest in nuclear matters- must realise the untruth of some of the rumours and misinformation and sheer fabrications that have appeared on this subject yet they have chosen to remain silent. They had three years to appraise themselves of the facts and I do them the credit of assuming that they did. In my judgment, they could have made a useful contribution to rational discussion of this subject and could have allayed public fears aroused by silly sensationalism. They have not done so. One must ask the question: Why? They have taken the matter further than that. In February 1977, I discharged an undertaking I had made to the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition- that is, the honourable member for Reid- to supply information to him. I wrote him a letter which recapitulated the salient facts about the Maralinga burials- the same information that had been available to the Government in which he was a Minister. I asked his permission to let me put that information on the record of this House. He would not ageee. I say this with some warmth to my -

Mr Uren:

– Include it in Hansard.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am most grateful to the honourable gentleman that at long last he will permit me to put the information on the public record. On eight occasions I tried to contact the honourable gentleman and I could not get a response. I say this to him: I have endeavoured over the years to treat him with courtesy and with honour. He disappointed me enormously that he did not respond more readily on the occasion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

-Is the Minister seeking leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard?

Mr KILLEN:

-Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows- 3 February 77

DearMrUren,

In Parliament on 9 December 1976 you asked a Question about British experiments at Maralinga in the late 1950s and early 1960s. I promised to make inquiries and respond to you before Parliament resumed.

This important matter, which is essentially one of longterm environmental management, has become confused and distorted by several unfounded allegations, in particular that an unexploded nuclear weapon is buried at Maralinga; that radioactive waste was brought from British nuclear power stations and buried at Maralinga; and that about 800 tonnes of nuclear waste material, including plutonium, is buried at Maralinga, which is what the South Australian Minister for Mines and Energy was reported on 20 December 1976 to have said.

Thorough investigations of all the records and evidence taken from Australian officials who held responsible positions at the time have revealed no evidence at all supporting or in any way substantiating these allegations.

The radioactive debris at Maralinga is derived from three sources- British nuclear tests and experiments carried out in that area some fifteen to twenty-five years ago; washings from British service aircraft which participated in the nuclear tests at Christmas Island in 1957-58 and which later flew to Edinburgh airfield for cleaning and maintenance, and nuclear medical waste from the University of Adelaide.

This debris was disposed of in various ways, including storage in steel and lead boxes, burial in pits, covering with massive concrete slabs, ploughing in, and fencing and area control. While it is true that some 800 tonnes of rubble are buried in 21 pits, this contains some 20 kilograms of plutonium and it is a mistake to describe it all as ‘nuclear waste material’.

These arrangements were incorporated in a report by the British Government so that residual radioactivity at sites of their tests would be recorded for posterity. This report, issued in 1968, is held by both the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments.

Surveys of the Maralinga area were undertaken in 1967 and 1 972 by the Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee. In December last year Professor H. J. deBruin of Flinders University accompanied a party of South Australian Department of Health officials on a survey in and around the Maralinga township. He reported ‘that no trace of radioactivity in excess of natural background radiation was detectable on or near the dump ‘.

These past surveys have not to date established a requirement for any Government to institute additional or different control and safety measures. But the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council recently recommended- in December 1976- that a further survey be made and the Government is taking steps to arrange this.

Should a need for any new measures become apparent this Government, and I have no doubt its successors, will take appropriate action. I know that you will agree that this matter must be kept under regular review and brought regularly to the attention of the Government of the day by AIRAC or its successors in the future.

You referred also to the ‘moratorium’ during which the British Government, along with the U.S. and Soviet Governments, accepted a self-imposed obligation to refrain from the testing of nuclear weapons. This lasted from September 1958 until September 1961, when, you will recall, the Soviet Government resumed testing of nuclear weapons. During this period the then British Government conducted various experiments at Maralinga. The details of these experiments were, and remain classified. The British Government has advised that:

No atomic devices were exploded during the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing between 1958 and 1 96 1 , and no unexploded nuclear device was buried. ‘

I do not consider that a Royal Commission is required into these matters or could serve any useful purpose now. The forthcoming environmental survey should add further data assisting governmental decisions about the continuing secure management of the material at Maralinga. As I say, it will be important to keep under regular review the adequacy of the protective and control measures in the Maralinga area.

Yours sincerely,

page 1720

D.J.KILLEN

TheHon.T.Uren,M.P.,

Deputy Leader of the Opposition, 3C-5 1st Floor,

Granville Towers, 10 Bridge Street,

page 1720

QUESTION

GRANVILLE, N.S. W. 2 1 42

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I am most grateful to the honourable gentleman for now agreeing to make the letter public. May I explain to the honourable gentleman and the House why I had not released the letter previously. I have a very old-fashioned view which reflects a value I hold. I will not release the text of a letter from me without the permission of the recipient of the letter. Some people have urged me on this occasion to break what is regarded as a nicety. I still hold to that view. If I write to any honourable member in this House or to any person outside it, unless I have that individual’s permission I will not release the letter. I am grateful that the honourable gentleman has now relented.

The honourable member for Reid has accused me of misleading this Parliament. I make no attempt to disguise the fact that I am intensely resentful of that charge. I say this to the honourable gentleman: I would never consciously mislead this House because I place the greatest value upon frank and open dealing with all those who sit in it. Neither will I accept the view that I may have unconsciously misled the House on this issue. As a consequence- I acknowledge that it may be tedium- I propose to deal with all the information I have given to this House on the question of the Maralinga tests. I trust the House will acknowledge that I am the custodian of the records relating to the Maralinga tests. That is where my ministerial responsibility starts and that is where it stops. I add to that the fact that I share part of a corporate responsibility insofar as I am a member of the Government.

On 2 December 1976, Senator Gietzelt asked in the Senate the following question:

  1. 1 ) Did the then Minister for Supply, Mr Garland, state on 14 September 1972, ‘All radio-active waste buried at three places in Australia, Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga resulted from experiments conducted at those places’.
  2. What radio-active material is buried there and what is the life span of such material and of the containers in which this material was buried.
  3. Has the maintenance of this area been brought to the attention of the Government.
  4. What precautions have been taken in the past, or are proposed to be taken in the future to ensure that the radioactive waste is not interfered with or exposed to the atmosphere.
  5. What measures have been taken to ensure that the full knowledge of the existence of the material is passed from government to government and from generation to generation.
  6. In view of the Government’s decision on the Fox inquiry and the potential danger to the Australian people from the lethal legacy of the past, will the Minister treat these matters as urgent.

The Minister representing me in the Senate provided this answer:

The Minister for Defence has directed that an inquiry be conducted into all aspects of the material buried at Maralinga as a consequence of the tests conducted under the auspices of the memorandum of arrangements between the United Kingdom and Australian Governments.

The House will recall that at that time there had been a most exhaustive study and report on the issue referred to as the Pearce Committee report. This report was published in 1968 following the clean-up operation known as Operation Brumby that took place in 1967. On 8 December 1976, Mr Whitlam, the then Leader of the Opposition, asked me:

  1. 1 ) What steps have been taken to verify the allegations by Dr John Coulter and Mr Avon Hudson on the radio program AM on 2 and 3 December 1976 that the British Government had flown radio-active waste including plutonium from nuclear power stations in Britain to Maralinga, where it was secretly buried at night.
  2. Are the assurances given by the Minister for Supply in response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 14 September 1972 (Hansard, pages 1384 and 1503) still valid.

I replied:

  1. There has been thorough investigation of all the records and evidence has been taken from Australian officials who held responsible positions at the time. This investigation has turned up no evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations that radio-active waste was brought from nuclear power stations in Britain for burial at Maralinga.

  2. The assurance given by Mr Garland in 1972 remains valid regarding risk. In addition to debris from experiments carried out in the area, some small quantities of radio-active material from the following sources are also buried at Maralinga:

    1. Washings from British Service aircraft which participated in nuclear tests at Christmas Island in 1957-58 and which later flew to Edinburgh airfield for cleaning and maintenance.
    2. Nuclear medical waste from the University of Adelaide.

On 9 December 1976, the honourable member for Reid asked me the following question:

Is it true that, during the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing between 1958 and 1961, Australia co-operated with the British in conducting secret atomic ‘Trigger’ tests at Maralinga and that waste and debris from these tests were buried at Maralinga? Will the Minister institute an inquiry into these matters? If this information is true, will he recommend that a royal commission be appointed to inquire into all aspects of such tests and the burial of nuclear waste at Maralinga?

I replied to the honourable gentleman:

I inform the honourable member that, as a consequence of allegations and reports made in the course of the last few days, urgent inquiries have been set in train to establish precisely what has been buried at Maralinga. That relates to the major point of the honourable gentleman’s question. I am not aware of any explosions that took place between 1958 and 1961. 1 am aware of certain trials, which I distinguish from explosions, as presently advised, that took place. They were conducted pursuant to an agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia. Nevertheless, I will make further inquiries as may seem appropriate and inform the honourable gentleman. To my knowledge the last explosions that were conducted at Maralinga were in 1955-56. 1 think there are four members of this House who have survived the political explosions in the interregnum- the honourable Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Fremantle, the honourable member for Mackellar and I. We have survived those explosions. The Gang of Four were in attendance- if I can explain to the honourable gentleman- at Operation ‘ Buffalo ‘.

This was a series of tests at Maralinga. I continued:

I think that was the series of tests. I give my friend, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, an assurance that I will make appropriate inquiries. Rather than wait until such time as the Parliament resumes, I will convey such information as I gather to the honourable gentleman.

I put it to my honourable friend that there is nothing in that reply that is not absolutely factual. I invite the honourable gentleman not to indulge in speculation. If he wants to make a charge that I am misleading the House I hope he will produce clear, explicit evidence. Pursuant to the undertaking I gave the honourable gentleman I wrote to him on 3 February 1977. That is the letter that now, after 1 8 months or more, the honourable gentleman has agreed to be incorporated in Hansard. As I said to the honourable gentleman and some of his colleagues, the letter is not a polemical letter. It is a straight factual account of the information that was available to me. Then, on 16 February 1977, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) asked me the following question:

I address a question to the Minister for Defence. It relates to the Minister’s undertaking to provide the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with information about the contaminated debris buried at Maralinga in South Australia subsequent to the atomic tests there some 20 years ago. Is the Minister yet in a position to release this information? If so, can he inform the house of the results?

I replied:

The answer is yes. I wrote to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the third of this month, conveying to him information concerning the tests.

With customary courtesy the honourable member for Reid interjected: lt took a long while to get to me.

I replied:

The truth will ultimately reach even you. It is a matter of some regret to me that on two occasions I telephoned the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s office asking for his approval to release the letter publicly, to no avail. It may be an old-fashioned view, but I am not in the habit of releasing letters that are written to people. My staff has subsequently been in touch with the honourable gentleman’s office on at least eight occasions, to no avail. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would indicate that he is agreeable to my making public the letter which I wrote to him, it would save the time of this House. I ask him, Mr Speaker. The silence is deafening. That being the case, and the honourable gentleman not being disposed to release the contents of the letter, I will tell the House the substance of the letter, without the personal flourishes of goodwill. In 1968 the British Atomic Energy Weapons Research establishment made a report concerning material buried at Maralinga. That report was known as the Pearce Committee report. It was classified by the United Kingdom Government. As a consequence, this Government is in no position to declassify it. About the middle of last year the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council appointed an ad hoc committee to consider further the material buried at Maralinga. In December of last year its report was considered by AIRAC. The principal recommendation of that report was that the Government should undertake a further detailed study of all ecological and environmental factors associated with the burial of material at Maralinga. The Government is presently attending to that recommendation.

On 9 March 1977, the present Leader of the Opposition asked me the following question:

Can he provide a full list of all nuclear explosions which have taken place in Australia giving the date, the size, location and purpose of each.

I replied:

Yes. The list is as follows:

With the co-operation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) I seek leave to include the list in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The list read as follows-

Mr KILLEN:

– The purpose of each explosion was related to the development of a British nuclear deterrent. On 15 March 1977 Senator Georges asked the Minister representing me in the Senate a long question. I seek leave to include the text of that question and my answer in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. 1 ) What are the results of investigations into radioactivity levels and the effectiveness of waste disposal at Maralinga.
  2. What radioactive material has been disposed of at Maralinga and in what quantities.
  3. 3 ) Is the Government considering any measures to rectify this waste disposal problem at Maralinga.

Senator Withers The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Detailed requirements for the condition in which Maralinga was to be left when British activity closed down were laid down in 1967 by the Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee set up by the Australian Government. After the British clean-up operation of that year the AWTSC reported to the Australian Prime Minister of the time that they ‘were satisfied Maralinga was radio-logically safe. Permanent and unrestricted access could be made to all but a few small areas and even they could be occupied on a short term basis without risk’. In 1972 a further survey confirmed the 1967 level of confidence.
  2. There were three sources of the radioactive material at Maralinga, viz. debris from British experiments 15 to 25 years ago; washings from British service aircraft which participated in nuclear tests at Christmas Island (in the Pacific) in 1957-58; and nuclear waste from the University of Adelaide.

The essential requirement in the clean-up process referred to in ( 1 ) above was to monitor radiation levels and record these in detail- not, in every case, the weight volume or chemical composition of the debris and accompanying rock, soil, etc., that was being disposed of.

The relevant report was submitted to the Australian Government of the day, forwarded to the South Australian Government, has been available to all subsequent governments- both Australian and South Australian- and was made available to the Australian Ionising Radiation Authority Council when that body, set up by the previous Australian Government, considered the Maralinga debris.

From the standpoint of long-term environmental management the most important of the extensive facts recorded in the report relate to the burial of some 20 kilograms of plutonium.

  1. Past surveys have not indicated a requirement on radiological grounds for any government since 1967 to institute additional or different control and safety measures. It has however always been recognised that period checks would be necessary (as in 1972).

The Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council recommended in December 1976 that a further survey be made and the Government is taking steps to arrange this.

Should a need for any new measures become apparent as a result of this survey, or other period review, this Government, and I have no doubt its successors, will take the necessary action.

Mr KILLEN:

– I thank the House. The facts are these: There have been seven occasions on which information has been sought from me regarding the Maralinga tests. I have given the facts on every occasion. I try to be sympathetic to the honourable member for Reid knowing as I do his personal experience of war, but I am saddened that he has allowed prejudice- blind, untrammelled prejudice- to control his thinking and his attitude on this matter of importance.

I have explained that the British exploded 12 atomic devices in Australia, three at Monte Bello, seven at Maralinga, and two at Emu Field near Maralinga. Between 1955 and 1963 the British also conducted a series of other scientific experiments with radioactive substances at Maralinga. The Maralinga and Emu areas were the subjects of a large scale clean-up operation conducted in 1967 to bring them to internationally acceptable standards set by the Australian Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee. That is Operation Buffalo to which I have referred and which led to the Pearce Committee’s report. In 1968 the Australian Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee informed the government of the day that it was satisfied that the area was radiologically safe, that permanent and unrestricted access could be made to all but a few small areas and that even they could be occupied on a short term basis without risk. It was recognised at the same time that periodic re-appraisals would be necessary. The first was carried out in 1 972. It confirmed the 1967 level of confidence.

There was no survey conducted on the ground in the period 1973-74-75. Consideration was given, however, by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), who then had ministerial responsibility to developing new means of survey. That much is historical. In December 1976 the Austraiian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council- AIRAC- endorsed proposals for a further review which should extend to an ecological survey of the area. These proposals were accepted by the responsible minister- the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development- who authorised the new survey in May 1977. The field work was commenced in August 1977 with the assistance of two South Australian Government departments. These were the Department of Mines and the Department of the Environment. The work involved specialist assistance from the Australian Radiation Laboratory, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Bureau of Meteorology.

It would not be inappropriate, I suggest, if I were to point out to the House that the AIRAC study which came into existence in 1974 was commissioned by the Labor Government. The AIRAC report of 1976 draws on the Pearce Committee’s report quite extensively. I accept what my friend the Leader of the Opposition said at Question Time today, that he had not seen the report, that his former Leader, Mr Whitlam, had not seen the report and that two of my predecessors in office, Mr Morrison and Mr Barnard, had not seen it. That may be an accident of administrative behaviour but I say that there has been no attempt whatsoever to disguise the existence of this report. The AIRAC report refers to the Pearce Committee’s report. For the life of me I find it an astonishing proposition that the honourable member for Maribyrnong, as the Minister responsible at the time, would have taken the decisions he did with respect to Maralinga if he had not looked at the entire history of it.

With the agreement of my colleague the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom) I inform the House of the present position, which is that the radiological and chemical analysis of the large number of soil, water and biological samples collected in 1977 is now substantially complete. This has involved a great deal of time and labour. AIRAC will shortly consider the technical reports from the co-operating laboratories and will prepare its recommendations for the Government. In 1977, as a result of consultation between Ministers, it was decided that an examination should commence of the long-range questions of man.gement associated with the Maralinga area. There were issues to be addressed of Commonwealth and State powers and responsibilities and of suitable administrative arrangements, bearing in mind that the area does not have relevance to any practical, contemporary Australian defence purpose.

It was also decided subsequently to join the Emu Field area to this study because the proximity of Maralinga and Emu Field suggested that the same, or similar, long-range environmental management measures should apply to both. This work now awaits the findings by AIRAC which will, of course be basic to further definition of the practical issues to be resolved at Maralinga.

It has additionally been decided to include the Monte Bellos in the general review. A joint Defence-AIRAC reconnaissance of the Monte Bello site will, in fact, commence later this month. It has been in the planning for the past two months.

These actions now mean that all the former nuclear weapons test sites in Australia are receiving close attention. That this is now happening does not mean that new facts or new phenomena have been advised to the Government which heighten concern about the sites. What it does mean is that- 20 to 25 years on- it is time to reassess what impediments, if any, stand in the way of their being opened up further to normal every-day activity.

The Government is proceeding in a methodical way to develop the most appropriate arrangements that can be made for the long-term management of these sites, based on the best scientific advice it can obtain. Yet another of the matters which this Government has had under active consideration- and one which lay behind Cabinet’s recent deliberations- relates to Australia’s obligations under the agreement signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency consequent upon our accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Our attention to this matter has led to a close appraisal of whether any of the material buried at Maralinga, while safely buried from the standpoint of surface radiation hazard, may also be safeguardable’ under the precise terms of Australia’s agreement with the IAEA. That agreement was signed since the burials were made. I remind honourable members opposite that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was ratified by the Labor Government and the accession to that Treaty was an act of the Whitlamled Government of the time. The agreement with the IAEA was also made by the Whitlam-led Labor Government. I invite honourable gentlemen and all people of fairness to reflect on whether those substantial commitments and responsibilities would have been entered into without some consideration at least being given to the Maralinga area at the time. If that were the case, it seems to me to be a very curious gap. I also remind honourable gentlemen that the Pearce Committee’s report describes where the uranium is buried. The AIRAC report makes the most explicit references to it. I say this not in any heat and, above all, not in any sense of hostility. I do not believe that there is the slightest scope for partisan conflict on this issue.

An analysis of the documentary records of the burials suggests that one pit does contain material in sufficient quantity to be safeguardable, and disposed of in such a way as to fit the new criterion ‘practicably recoverable’. Honourable members should notice that the language used suggests that one pit does contain material. It does not assert this; it suggests it. This is because, pursuant to the IAEA agreement, we will take seriously our obligations and we will respect the safeguards. We must accept the criteria that is being suggested to us and they must be properly considered.

The reconnaissance on the ground that Cabinet has now authorised is intended to test the conclusion reached from the documents and, if it is verified, to establish the practical measures to effect exhumation.

It is essential to emphasise here, and for this House and the Australian public to understand, that there is no direct relationship between recoverability and radiation levels at Maralinga. The fact that one pit contains plutonium in a form of burial which may make its exhumation practicable has in fact nothing whatever to do with surface radiation. There has been a regrettable tendency to sensationalise this subject in ways that have left the impression in some people’s minds that there is one particularly ‘hot’ or dangerous pit at Maralinga which should have been the subject of special measures, from a health viewpoint, which recent Australian governments have failed to take. That is not the case, and in the interests of rational discussion on the matter I extend what I have just said to include the Whitlam Labor Government, of which the honourable member for Reid was a member.

I also point out here that ‘discrete’, a term which it has been revealed was used in my submission to Cabinet, does not mean there is a solid half-kilogram lump of pure plutonium metal buried at Maralinga. The term relates to an individually distinct quantity that was buried, comprising discs which were shattered during experiments, after which the plutonium was put into steel cylinders, along with the material surrounding it, and the group of cylinders buried together in the one pit. This aggregation of concentrated material in sealed containers in the one spot is in sharp contrast to the remainder of the plutonium at Maralinga which is dispersed in more than 800 tonnes of rubble- I emphasise the word rubble’- in the pits.

The first requirement will be to conduct the reconnaissance. That reconnaissance shall say whether or not the plutonium is recoverable. If it is recoverable it will certainly be no easy task to undertake under properly controlled conditions. It needs to be kept in mind that recovery would involve two processes: Exhumation of the burial, and extraction of the plutonium. For practical reasons, the Government would greatly have preferred to have dealt with this matter as part of its broader program for the long-term environmental management of the general area. It has, however, decided that action on the halfkilogram should be accelerated, and that is what my Cabinet submission was about. One reason was that, if the material is indeed recoverable, our international obligations require that it be dealt with. The second was that, even if the risk of circumstances arising in which the plutonium might be exhumed illegally are infinitesimally small at present, the material should not be left there- if recoverable- against an unforseeable future.

It is characteristic of a certain kind of so-called journalism in this country that certain sections of my Cabinet submissions were reported accurately, while other parts were selected for distortion to contrive a mixture that would create a sensational impact and alarm the public. My submission did not suggest that the material was currently a terrorist threat; it did not say there were no deterrents to its theft; it did not suggest it could, under the present circumstances, be stolen; and it did not say that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had been warned that the material created a terrorist problem. What I did say is that the material could conceivably, in the future, become a risk in a terrorist context- if left in its present burial state.

I could not readily envisage circumstances in which that threat might materialise. But I do know that one of the requirements for the burial to become a threat would be the widespread dissemination of knowledge of the potential recoverability of the material before it had been recovered by the authorities. That is why the possibility of recovery was being closely held until the reconnaissance had been conducted. It was an obvious responsibility to withhold that consideration until the reconnaissance had been done. It was an act of irresponsibility that blazoned it across the newspapers. It was an evil mind that made the first improper revelation to a newspaper. That act of revelation is to be deeply despised. It merits no mere indignation but the severest sanction.

There has been an enhancement of surveillance over the airfield site. When journalists from Adelaide sought last Friday to prove otherwise, one of the policemen to whom they spoke had, in fact, arrived at Maralinga that morning. That did not stop the Press in question from alleging that no new measures had been takenanother instance of people saying what they want to believe about this matter, not what is true.

I do not intend to state here the details of the additional measures. They certainly include more than one additional policeman. They are adequate. In applying itself to the task of selectively misreporting a leaked Cabinet document, one newspaper has also suggested that the document demonstrated that the Atomic Energy Commission could not handle the substance if it were exhumed. That, quite simply, is another untruth. The point is that by exhuming the burial, Australia would be obliged to enter the plutonium it contains on the inventory of fissionable materials in Australian territory which Australia maintains with the IAEA under its obligations deriving from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Substances entered on such inventories have to be subjected to rigorous analysis to determine their exact quantity and characteristics. But the point is that we do not want the plutonium, we have no use for it, and the costly task of undertaking a thorough analysis of the material would meet no practical Australian purpose. Britain, by contrast, would not be obliged under the NPT to characterise the material when taking it into inventory.

This is one reason why the return of the material to the British may be the more desirable option. Much, however, will depend on whether the reconnaissance on the ground verifies the judgment reached from the analysis of the documents. Arrangements have been made for a joint investigation with British officials of the situation.

Sir, those are the facts and those are the considerations. Those are the actions this Government is taking. We will not let the pointless events of the past few days deflect us from the responsible, rational and measured approach we have been adopting in this matter. I present the following paper:

Radioactive Material at Maralinga- Ministerial Statement, 1 1 October 1978.

Motion (by Mr Staley) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 35 minutes.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition will always adopt a bipartisan policy when discussing a matter of truth and public interest but in this case we say and propose to prove that what we have had is a series of half-truths, misleading information and a cover-up for some period of years. The statement read by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) is some 26 pages in length. Pages 6 to 14 are matters of record; I think that is clear. Therefore, we have to look at what the defence of the Government is. We acknowledge immediately there is a problem. The Minister himself says that. There is plutonium there. For the first time this is acknowledged as a problem. Now after 25 years some action has to be taken by the Government. We are not here to malign any particular Minister but let us look at the record to see how it is put to the Parliament today. On page 1 it says quite forcibly, in effect: ‘Well, people like myself and all my former colleagues should have known what happened. The records were available to them.’

We only took office in 1972. We had no knowledge of the matters that were there as far as Maralinga was concerned. It is a very weak argument indeed to say that because we were in Government we should have known what happened at Maralinga some 20 years before that. I have taken the liberty- not knowing the Minister was going to make that statement- to discuss the matter with some of my colleagues who were responsible, not the least of whom would be Mr Barnard. I obtained a most illuminating answer when I telephoned him this morning. He said:

I never knew there was any plutonium there. I asked my Department what was there and they said: ‘All you have got to worry about is the question of contamination. ‘

In other words, he was misled by the Defence Department. This is a very serious accusation to make because the Minister has made it on the basis that we should have known and that our Ministers did not behave properly. I put it to the Minister that an honourable man, Mr Barnard, made an inquiry from his own Department and he was misled.

Mr Killen:

-Whom did he ask?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– You can ask Mr Barnard. You know him well. He would not be telling a lie. The other point is, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) said today, he also inquired of other Ministers. But I shall take the onus of saying I spoke to Mr Barnard this morning. If you look at the Hansard you see Mr Barnard asking questions in 1972, before we obtained office, of your present compatriot, the Minister for Special Trade Representations, Mr

Garland, who was giving answers in 1972 which were misleading as to the present situation. Mr Barnard, who said he had received information on a high level that there was some problem at Maralinga, got an answer from Mr Garland to this effect:

There have been a series of tests and they are enumerated. There are no real problems. We have monitored the area. We know what is there and we have discovered nothing unexpected.

This is the position of your predecessors, your governments of the earlier period. They would now come into this House and say: ‘All the responsibility is with you people. You should have known.’ That is the information that we are expected to rely upon, information given by Ministers in answers to questions in 1972 and we would accept that to be the situation. So why would Mr Barnard go off suddenly in 1973 and 1974 to find out whether there was plutonium there when the answer was given by the Defence Department- or the Minister for Supply in that case, and it is not exempt- as to what the position was? It was misleading information of the Government at the time and it is still the position. We want to make it very clear that they went on to indicate what had happened about the burial and there were no real problems. Then you get into the problem of doubtful physics by the Minister then saying in 1972 that the particular waste disposal material was only of concern for its halflife of 15 or 20 years when he really meant 150 years and 250 years; he forgot to use the multiplying factor of 10. Let us look at the situation as to what has happened that might have encouraged this Government to take a little more interest in the situation. I want to put it on this basis, not on the basis that we were supposed to find out something, but there could have been people in the Defence Department who did go to the trouble of finding out something. I do not know. I have never met the gentleman I propose to mention but I have a feeling when I look at the Press reports of February 1977 that there is a bit of a clue as to the situation. It comes from the Chief Defence Scientist, Dr Farrands, and I would wager now that Dr Farrands was not satisfied at all and he was in a position to find out after the Labor Government left office. You see clearly the position as outlined in the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 1 February 1977:

Doubts cast on nuclear dump.

You can see a reference to Dr Farrands ‘s report as being studied by the Minister and that:

  1. . Mr Killen has received separate advice . . to improve the nuclear waste safeguards.

This is very interesting because I would say that is the source which started the Government saying that perhaps there is something more serious. Dr Farrands is telling us that perhaps what we were told for years before is not really true. My colleague, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), was raising questions about safeguards at the time, pursuing the whole question of information coming out of the Government. I would say it was because there was a person, another scientist in the Defence Department, who said: Let us have another look at this situation. Is it true that all the information is given?’ So it is understood that Dr Farrands found that the radioactive waste, although emitting no radiation at ground level, was buried in a way which was not adequate by today’s nuclear standards.

Now we want to have the truth for the people of Australia, the people of South Australia and the Government of South Australia because this is the most serious aspect of the cover-up position. You are not exempt at any stage, by bringing in the defence here that: ‘You should have known’. The position occurred in the early 50 ‘s and carried through into the 60 ‘s. The person responsible, obviously, was Sir Robert Menzies. We are not raising mat in any indictment of him but his own Minister, Mr Beale, has raced into print to clearly show, as recently as 6 October, that when he was the responsible Minister he did not know what was going to happen. He was in the category of ‘no need to know’, that is, as he said, the then Prime Minister had made a decision and he was not to be told. He then said that he became furious. This question of temper and temperament is always a veneer for ignorance. It does not add up to any strength in a Minister. The plain fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister of the day, Sir Robert Menzies, decided and told the British they could carry out the explosions in Australia. He did not tell anybody else, including his own Ministers. Let us have that on the record. It is very difficult to conduct a post-mortem examination on a body that has been underground for 20 years when one is trying to do it from the surface.

The real point would have been to have looked at the problems when the explosions took place over that period of time, but that was not done. That is the position about which we are complaining. We do not know exactly what happened. Obviously Menzies did know. Beale professes to know on the basis that he got a bit excited and was told about it. He might have been told about it, but what was done about it? What was buried there? The issue is now dragged out on the basis that everything is in order. The Government has said that it entered into an agreement in 1968 which was a mutual exclusion agreement that there was no responsibility on either side. When we look at who was involved in 1968, Ministers such as the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) were in the Cabinet in that period. What action did they take before they signed the clearing agreements? There is no mention of this in the Minister’s statement, not a word. The poor unfortunate member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), who is not here today, I think can gain some comfort from this statement. At least he set up the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Committee. At least he created it and encouraged it to do something about the matter, and the Minister for Defence admits that. The Minister is still relying on that body to get some further information. Do not let us have an indictment dealing with a particular period of time and say what should have happened in the 1 950s and 1960s. We got more information yesterday from a Press release issued by the British High Commission than we have ever got from this Government. In a statement of one and a half pages the British High Commissioner had no trouble at all in telling us that there had been a series of explosions there up to 1 963.

Mr Killen:

– Not explosions.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-We will argue that in a moment. We do not want to get involved in the fine detail of higher physics because neither of us is going to pass. At this stage let us look at the statement. Apart from nuclear explosions, there were some minor experiments. The period I am talking about is up to 1963. A very interesting aspect is raised by the reporter whom the Minister has maligned today. He was just doing his job as a reporter for the Australian Financial Review, and he said that we should look at the notes made by Eisenhower’s special adviser, a fellow called Kistiakowsky, who made an entry in his diary in 1960, saying that he had a discussion with Lord Penney, the British scientist, about what was happening at Maralinga. It was to be a very secret matter indeed and it was to be on the basis of the latest technology for triggering nuclear devices by using a small nuclear reaction, not a full explosion. That may be the situation. It is interesting to note that it is on record in the United States. I do not think that this Government knew about it. It was never told. If we look at what was happening then in the defence area, and perhaps this is relevant today, there are people in Australia who deem that they have more responsibility to their own group than to a parliament or to a Minister. That is a very serious situation. A very small coterie of people say that they know what is best for Australia. There are nuclear scientists who are not interested in the general political management of Australia. They want to see atomic weapons or nuclear proliferation because that is their particular bent. That situation can flow through a defence structure, and a parliament can be denied accurate information about what happened.

I have no doubt that Lord Penney would have discussed this with Australian scientists, but did they put it on record? They might have told Menzies at the time but he did not tell anybody else, and there we have the position of the Maralinga cover-up. In the statement yesterday issued by the British High Commission there is reference to the fact that ‘experimentation’, if not nuclear explosions, occurred up to 1963. It covered an extensive period of time.

There was a further explosion, which has not been detailed here, at Christmas Island- the British Christmas Island, not the Australian Christmas Island- which apparently involved the detonation of a hydrogen bomb. The washings from the aircraft were buried at Maralinga. That explosion was in addition to all the others. So we have this position of explosions over a long period of time. The Government in Australia apparently was informed about the tests but did not tell the Parliament about and, obviously did not know what was happening to, the residue of radioactive material or plutonium.

Yesterday we learned from the British that at least half a kilogram of plutonium was buried in a special segment called a discrete mass. That resulted from ‘minor experiments’ which involved the shattering of small discs of plutonium into numerous fragments. The Minister is prepared to go on record and say that there was nothing wrong with that, that it did not really amount to a nuclear explosion, that it did not amount to experimenting with a triggering device which might detonate a larger bomb. But what did it do? That is the question that the honourable member for Reid has raised. Was it in one way a breach of the agreement made by the super powers, including Britain, between 19S8 and 1961, that no atomic tests would be conducted? That issue is somewhat wide of the issue we are discussing today, which relates to the residue, to the failure of government policy, and to a cover-up. But we got yesterday from the British High Commission the information that they were experimenting at least in some form with the shattering of plutonium discs into numerous fragments. I have no doubt that the world at large would be interested to know what actually happened. They would not have been doing that just as an exercise.

Where is the Government’s policy on the issue of nuclear proliferation and the problems of waste? The Government is anxious to export uranium at any price, at any time, and as much as it can get out of the ground, if the people of Australia will let it. Yet as soon as a problem appears on the Government’s doorstep it is gasping to find a solution. The Government has no real supervisory or regulatory commission to organise what is happening in Australia in relation to radioactive wastes and their safeguard and treatment, or in relation to plutonium. The Government is selling to the world the natural oxide from which plutonium is created, from which nuclear wastes are created. It could not care less if it exported those troubles somewhere else. It is interested only in the money. But when we have our own problems in Australia the Minister shows great concern, as he should. There has been a great cover-up by previous governments, and there should not have been. The people of Australia have been misled.

I come now to the critical situation of what has been happening since 1976. Obviously a situation flows from Farrands making some investigations and statements. The Minister was informed about it, and questions were asked in the House. He had to write letters in answer to letters written to him. In the Minister’s letters, and we can see again the inconsistency of this, he referred not to a discrete mass of half a kilogram of plutonium- he did not know, or if he did know he did not disclose it- but to a mass of some 20 kilograms of plutonium, which indicates just how unsatisfactory the whole situation is. I have no doubt that if the Minister had known he would have said so, and he obviously was not told. That is the sort of thing that can happen. It is a very dangerous and disastrous situation when Government Ministers are not informed by the so-called elite, who have no responsibility to the democratic process. Perhaps we ought to get Dr Farrands here and ask him how it happened. I understand that he would have some views about the situation. He would have some views about people who should have disclosed information previously. This is an important part of democracy. We have a Government which does not have a policy for uranium. It relies on some specious argument that Ministers of a Labor Government should have known. But we are talking about the period from 1952 to 1963. We are talking about the likes of Sir Robert Menzies, Howard Beale, Mr Garland and others. It can be readily seen that they were the ones who should have known, could have known, and failed. The Parliament was misled in 1972 and it was misled again recently by the Minister’s letter, which said that there was no real problem.

Mr Killen:

– That is simply not true.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– It is simply true and the Minister knows that now. We learned from the British High Commission that the existence of half a kilogram of plutonium was not disclosed before. The Minister would have disclosed that information if he had known of it. When he wrote the letter of 3 February he was not told.

Mr Killen:

– It was not until the Australian Safeguards Office -

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Let me make the point: I suggest that Farrands knew. I suggest that a number of other people knew. The nuclear scientist, Titterton, however, has said that it did not exist. He must have egg all over his face. He was responsible for giving some advice and he has gone on record as saying: ‘How could it possibly exist? It is worth $250,000. You do not think we would leave it there?’ Now it is known to be there, and that is the situation we face in this Parliament. The Parliament has been misled. The people of Australia have been misled. The truth has not been told, and we now have to wait for a team of British scientists to come here from the United Kingdom to tell us what is there. How silly can you get! These are very serious matters indeed because they relate to the policy of the Government.

What aids does the Government have to supervise the situation? We have nothing like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States, which is composed of two scientists and two others and which investigates, on an independent basis, the nuclear activities of the government and its departments. That is what we need in this country. We put that to the Government on 3 May as being a reasonable approach that would get the Government off the hook from the point of view of its mistakes or its inability to understand a report to the Parliament as to what was happening as regards nuclear waste, plutonium and general activities. We had the ridiculous example of the possibility of a train carrying uranium oxide being lost in Rockhampton. All that the Minister for National Development could say when answering a question on this matter was that it was the responsibility of the Queensland Railways. How ridiculous is it to have this sort of lack of control over what we are about.

The Minister talks about there being 800 tonnes of rubble. There is a lot of argument about the use of the word ‘rubble’. A fair section of it is high level radioactive waste with a long life and the Minister has no right to come into this chamber and say that it is rubble and does not count for anything. There is a considered opinion that it counts for a lot because it is high level radioactive waste. The plutonium has a life of 24,000 years and the other high level waste has a life of 1 50 years to 200 years. Is it buried in safe containers? Nobody can give us the answer to that. That is the point we are making. We have not been told the real position. We were never going to be told the real position until the Minister, for some reason known only to himself, decided to make a Cabinet submission about this half-kilogram of plutonium. We are not here to attack the Minister as to whether he was talking about terrorism, but I remind him of a Courier Mail article which states:

The Defence Minister last night admitted that dangerous plutonium waste existed at Maralinga in South Australia ‘in a potentially recoverable form by potential terrorists’.

Mr Killen:

– Potential.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Yes. I think it is a fair argument to say that a potential terrorist is likely to have some ability to get at the waste. The Minister made that remark about potential terrorists, but now he is saying that we need not worry about the word ‘potential’. The British came out and said: ‘That’s damn ridiculous. How are you going to get rid of the over-burden and get to it?’

Mr Killen:

– The scientists do not agree on it.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am here to argue the case for telling the people of Australia what they want to know. They want the truth and the facts and they want to know where the responsibility lies. Let us put the matter on the basis of what has happened today. The real issue is this: The governments of the 1950s and the 1960s should have found out about this matter as they had the chance to do so, but they did nothing about it. The secret agreement between Australia and Great Britain is not to be disclosed at all - and that is a serious matter. Will we ever know what actually happened? Will we ever know what is buried at Maralinga? That is the problem. We should not have been left with this problem. It is an indictment of our not having a policy.

This brings me to another point. I have just had handed to me a copy of an urgent message today from Don Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, to the Prime Minister. Mr Dunstan is very concerned about what is happening. He makes the point that the South Australian Government has been unable to get any information on this matter for a long time.

Mr Killen:

– It has the reports.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It has not got the information. Let me hit the Minister with this problem. I spoke with Mr Hudson, a Minister of the South Australian Government, who said: ‘I saw Jim Killen in late 1976 and I went and saw the Department. I got the strong impression that the Department was covering up the whole thing because I could not find out any more information. Killen said he would let me have some information, but later on he said that it was a matter for Newman. I have heard nothing from him since’. That is the position. ‘Since’ is two years ago. The Minister himself was promising to make statements in 1976 and 1977, but no further statements were made.

Mr Killen:

– I wrote to the honourable member for Reid. I honoured every obligation.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-A statement in the Age of 5 February says:

  1. . Mr Killen will soon provide details of nuclear waste buried at Maralinga … Mr Killen is also expected to reveal for the first time the extent and nature of weapons testing at Maralinga.

I am not holding the Minister to that statement, but when we look at what Mr Hudson said we see that it adds up to the fact that he was very concerned. Today the Prime Minister has received a telex from the South Austraiian Premier saying that he wants a full public inquiryand he is entitled to that inquiry. He is entitled to know what the position is, because the Minister, according to his statement, is going to leave the Premier with the whole problem. The Minister’s statement indicates that as soon as the Federal Government gets a clearance it will opt out straight away. It will say: ‘The site has been cleared. It is all a matter for the South Australian Government now. They can have it’. That appears on page 20 of the Minister’s prepared statement. It refers to the issues to be addressed by Commonwealth and State powers and responsibilities and to suitable administrative arrangements. Reading between the lines, that means that the South Australian Government is going to cop the problem. That is what this is all about.

There has to be a situation whereby we have in this Parliament a full and frank disclosure of the past and a full understanding of the present problems. We need a government with an understanding of environmental and safety issues; a government with a policy as to how to control nuclear waste disposal. It is no good relying on an economic theory that we can just give the problem to someone else overseas and not worry about it ourselves. The Government has a moral responsibility to have the same sort of Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the United States. If we had such a body now we could appeal to it as an independent group to give us an analysis of the situation. Indeed, if it had existed in the 1950s and the 1960s, the present incompetent situation would never have arisen. We would never have had this outmoded method of waste disposal whereby we expect the people of South Australia, particularly the Aborigines who move across the area, to put up with the situation from the point of view of hazards. We just do not know what to do and the British have left us with the problem. Perhaps they will now want the plutonium if it is worth a quarter of a million dollars. We would be happy to think that they were willing to take it originally. But it is not so much the plutonium, it is also the high level radioactive waste. We can see the extent of this problem by reading what Mr Dunstan said. He said:

On a matter of such fundamental significance to public health and safety as the proper disposal of plutonium and other high level radioactive wastes, it is essential that the fullest information on security and other precautions should be assembled. The South Australian Government therefore urgently requests that you establish, without delay, a full public enquiry into all aspects of the disposal of plutonium and other radioactive substances at or near Maralinga, whether these substances are derived from the English tests carried out in that area or otherwise.

My Government believes that a searching public enquiry of this nature is essential if full and effective information is to be gathered, and the quite understandable fears of the public at large are to be allayed.

I seek your, urgent attention to this matter, and a response as soon as possible. I should be glad to discuss these matters with you directly or to make available senior officers to pursue matters of detail.

That message was sent today. It shows the concern that the South Australian Government has had on this matter for two years. I would assume that nothing would have happened had Farrands, or someone else, not raised this matter in 1 976 or 1 977 because that was when there was some signal that all was not well. That was what alerted us. We want a person like Farrands to be advising the Government on this issue. We do not want the miserable approach that has been adopted today of saying that the Labor Government should have known. We were all named, in a litany of seats. The Minister knows very well that we were misled in 1972 by the then Minister for Supply when he gave an answer to the effect that he knew what was there and there was no problem. I spoke to Barnard today and he confirmed that he had relied on that answer. When he asked his own Department about the matter he was told that there was no plutonium there.

Mr Killen:

– To whom did he speak?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Minister can ask him. To whom did the Minister speak in 1976 and 1977? The Minister wrote a letter on 3 February and never disclosed the fact that there was a separate, discrete mass of plutonium. The Minister did not mention that.

Mr Killen:

– That did not emerge.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No, it did not emerge, but the plutonium emerged there in 1955. Why did it not emerge in 1967 and 1968 if the Government had a clearance agreement with the British? It would have had to emerge from the point of view of the facts. But how can we get the facts if we have to allow a lapse of time of 10 or 15 years- in this case, 25 years? How can the Minister argue a case on that basis when his Government had the responsibility to reveal the facts? That is what this is all about. When the Opposition tries to seek information, which is its responsibility, a cover-up process goes on. When a journalist does his duty in the interests of the Parliament -

MrKillen-Duty!

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

– Yes, duty. What did he do that was so secret? The British High Commission releases a Press statement saying the same thing. What was so secret about it? How ridiculous can the Minister get in talking about the Crimes Act or something else! The British had no compunction about saying: ‘Of course there is a special half a kilo there. We will tell you how it happened. It happened in six or seven minor experiments concerning splitting a disc of plutonium’. There was no secret about it, but it was never told to the Australian nation, to the Australian people. That is the problem we face today. It is the problem of a government that fails to have any policies in this regard. The deceit and deception surrounding Maralinga was very much a forerunner of the deceit and deception of Vietnam. That is the real issue. In the case of Vietnam there were letters, other forms of correspondence and false issues. The letter that went to Washington from people who held very high office was to the effect that it would be a good political hokum to sent a battalion to Vietnam. The White Paper on our involvement in Vietnam points up this fact: How is the Government going to run a strong democracy if it fails to take its own people into its confidence.

Mr Hodgman:

– How do you run a strong democracy with a weak Opposition?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That is the point we are making. How do you expect to maintain a strong point of view?

Mr Hodgman:

– A weak Opposition destroys a democracy.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-We are weak in numbers but we are pretty strong today from the point of view of truth and honesty. I do not think anybody in Australia would accept the ratbag sort of answer that has been given, that is: ‘We will name the Ministers who should have known in 1972’.

Mr Killen:

– We did not say that.

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

– Not even you would stoop to that level, to suggest that because someone is able to name some Ministers in the past they are the ones to blame, knowing very well that the whole issue is one of secrecy and cover-up. Only today a member of a responsible State government claimed that it has been trying for two years to get information.

Mr Hodgman:

– This is not one of your better performances. It is one of your worst performances.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am not interested in your judgment of people. I am interested in what is happening to the people of Australia. That is the issue today. Cut out the smart interjections. Talk about whether the likes of Menzies, Beale and others did not do their job by Australia. That is the question today. Perhaps the Minister for Defence, who is sitting opposite, is exempt from responsibility in this respect because he was not a member of Cabinet at the time. But it is not a valid argument for a Minister to come in here and malign all of my colleagues, some of whom are no longer members of this place, on the basis that they should have known. The Minister knows what the situation should have been. He knows that the Government still has not policies in this matter. We have urged the Government to set up an independent group. It cannot now be expected to rely on information given by a department that perhaps does not always want to disclose the information or is unable to disclose the information. We have the ridiculous situation that we do not know what is buried at Maralinga. The British know, but we have no access to the information. It is wrong, quite wrong, for a Minister to come in here and say: ‘Everything will be in order, we are going to get the British out to advise us’. My suggestion to the Government is that there should be a public inquiry. Accordingly, because of what has happened, I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: this House censures the Government for its incompetence and failure to adopt responsible nuclear policies and its misleading and contradictory statements about British atomic weapons tests and forthwith calls upon the Government to appoint an independent committee of inquiry to report upon-

  1. 1 ) the disposal of plutonium and all other radioactive waste materials in Australia,
  2. the health of the Aboriginal population near the weapons test area in South Australia and the future environmental management of those areas, and
  3. the need to establish a nuclear safeguards, safety and security commission.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Is the amendment seconded?

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I second the amendment and I wish to speak now. There is one certain thing which can be said about Maralinga: This Parliament and the Australian public have not been told the full story. Instead, a succession of Liberal-National Country Party Ministers have made misleading and contradictory statements to the Parliament and outside the Parliament about Maralinga. Public concern has been answered with a series of untruths and halftruths about the testing that took place at Maralinga and about the waste that now remains and the hazard within this country at present. There are many unanswered questions and unresolved problems associated with Maralinga. There are serious questions concerning the health of Australian citizens, especially Aboriginals, concerning Australia’s sovereignty and whether the Australian Government always has been kept informed of events on Australian soil, concerning the hazards of waste which remains at Maralinga and the cost to Australian taxpayers of policing the nuclear waste for 300,000 years, the time it will take before it loses its toxicity.

The Opposition believes that a full public inquiry must be held in order to answer these questions. It is time that the public was given all the facts about Maralinga. Answers to legitimate health and safety concerns are long overdue. It is clear that many problems associated with Maralinga have not been resolved. The Government’s earlier slick assurances about nuclear wastes, nuclear safeguards and the health risks of radiation are even less convincing when we examine the record at Maralinga. It simply cannot or will not provide a straight-forward answer to the most basic questions. We must now be given the answers. Maralinga is a stark example of the bankruptcy of this Government’s uranium policy. So many problems are still unresolved in relation to the whole nuclear business.

Let us look at the statements which were made by successive Liberal Ministers. On 14 September 1972 in this House the Minister for Supply was asked a question by Mr Barnard concerning whether nuclear wastes had been brought from Britain for dumping at Maralinga. Later the same day the Minister produced a public statement and later that day he spoke in the adjournment debate in the House in which he said:

All radioactive waste buried at three places in AustraliaMonte Bello Islands, Emu and Maralinga- resulted from experiments conducted at those places.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr UREN:

– If we now look at the answer given on 16 February 1977 by the Minister for Defence to a question on notice from E. G. Whitlam we find that he revealed that the waste from Christmas Island nuclear tests which resulted from washings of the British aircraft that flew to Edinburgh airfield in South Australia, were buried at Maralinga. This directly contradicts earlier statements by the then Minister for Supply. Why did that Minister not provide this information to the House in 1972? Was he aware of these facts? If not, why not? What is clear is that this Parliament was misled by the Minister who now serves as the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland). I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the four statements to which I have referred.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Radioactive Waste

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Supply: Have quantities of radioactive waste from British nuclear establishments been dumped in Australia? In particular were lead-lined boxes of radioactive waste flown from Britain and buried on the Maralinga testing site? If so, how much of this material was dumped? When did the dumping start and when did it cease? Why was this practice not disclosed to the Australian public?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honourable member has been careful not to make any statement about the source of the allegations and I think that that in itself is significant. I have no knowledge of the allegations he has made and I will certainly look into the matter. Referring to those areas in the Maralinga region which I mentioned in an answer to a question yesterday, might I say that the British Government spent a very large sum of money making areas as safe as possible by pouring great quantities of concrete to fill in areas that had been dug deep, and in restoring the surface area as much as possible. All of this took place nearly 20 years ago. The radioactive material present in those areas has in the main a half life of some 1 5 or 20 years, I think, from memory and so its effect, deep and buried and covered as it is, has been very much diminished in that time. However, I will make inquiries in relation to the particular charge which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made.

Statement by Minister for Supply

BURIAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

(Statement by the Minister for Supply, the Hon. R. V. Garland, M.P.)

The Minister for Supply, Mr R. V. Garland, during the Adjournment Debate in the House of Representatives on 14 September, said:

Today I was asked a question by the Hon. the Deputy Leader of the Opposition which implied that radioactive wastes from Britain had been flown to Australia and buried at Maralinga.

Because of the nature of the allegation implicit in Mr Barnard’s question, I had urgent inquiries made of the Department of Supply. As a result I have been informed as follows: “There is no known foundation for the allegation. “All radioactive waste buried at three places in Australia, Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga, resulted from experiments conducted at those places. “Relatively small areas at those places were used exclusively for the disposal of waste from experiments in Australia. The places were never intended for the burial of radioactive waste from Britain. “No request by the British to bury, in Australia, waste from their nuclear establishments has been made and certainly no such permission has ever been given. “We have monitored the areas, we know what is there and we have discovered nothing unexpected in our monitoring either in nature or quantity. “Of course we have never produced nuclear weapons or bombs in Australia. So it is clear that the original radioactive material required for the range of experiments had to be brought from Britain. It is possible that in some cases it arrived by air in lead-lined boxes. “But what is buried at Maralinga and the other places is purely the radioactive waste from the experiments conducted with this original material. “As I indicated this morning, all the radioactive material buried in the Maralinga area is covered by thick layers of concrete and is well below the surface where the risk from casual entry is insignificant. Two of these sites remain in the new Woomera prohibited area and the third, close to the Maralinga airstrip, is adequately fenced so that it can be properly controlled should Maralinga itself ever be used as a centre of population or as a tourist attraction. “These sites are not considered dangerous for short-term visits”.’

Statement by Minister for Supply

Mr GARLAND (Curtin-Minister for Supply)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) for finding that formula to enable me to speak now. During question time today the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question which implied that radioactive wastes from the United Kingdom had been flown to Australia and buried at Maralinga in South Australia. Because of the nature of the allegation implicit in his question, I had urgent inquiries made by the Department of Supply. As a result, I have been informed as follows: There is no known foundation for the allegation. All radioactive waste buried at 3 places in Australia- Monte Bello Islands, Emu and Maralinga- resulted from experiments conducted at those places. Relatively small areas at those places were used exclusively for the disposal of waste from experiments in Australia. The places were never intended for the burial of radioactive waste from Britain. No request by the British to bury in Australia waste from their nuclear establishments has been made and certainly no such permission has ever been given. We have monitored the areas, we know what is there and we have discovered nothing unexpected in our monitoring either in nature or quantity. Of course we have never produced nuclear weapons or bombs in Australia. So it is clear that the original radioactive material required for the range of experiments had to be brought from Britain. It is possible that in some cases it arrived by air in lead lined boxes. But what is buried at Maralinga and the other places is purely the radioactive waste from the experiments conducted with this original material.

As I indicated this morning, all the radioactive material buried in the Maralinga area is covered by thick layers of concrete and is well below the surface where the risk from casual entry is insignificant. Two of these sites remain in the new Woomera prohibited areas, as gazetted today, and the third, close to the Maralinga airstrip, is adequately fenced so that it can be properly controlled should Maralinga itself ever be used as a centre of population or as a tourist attraction. These sites are not considered dangerous for short term visits.

I gave a copy of these remarks to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition after dinner. I take this opportunity to advise the House as the information I have just given was not available by the end of the question time today. It might be of interest to honourable members to know- this information was sought of me quite recently by another honourable member- that there were 2 explosions at Emu Field in 1953, and 7 at Maralinga in 1956 and 1957. 1 think I indicated at question time today, or implied, that it was earlier than that. One of those explosions occurred on 4th October 1956 and, according to the file, no fewer than 23 members of the Parliament were present, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and 7 members of his Party. I do not by these remarks wish to provoke the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, though I seem to have been able to do so on more than one occasion quite recently. However, he is at the table now and I would be most interested to hear the basis of the allegations and the circumstances which he sees.

Answer by Minister for Defence

Mr E G Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1) What steps have been taken to verify the allegations by Dr John Coulter and Mr Avon Hudson on the radio program AM on 2 and 3 December 1976 that the British Government had flown radioactive waste including plutonium from nuclear power stations in Britain to Maralinga, where it was secretly buried at night.
  2. ) Are the assurances given by the Minister for Supply in response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 14 September 1972 (Hansard, pages 1384 and 1503) still valid.
Mr Killen:

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

  1. There has been thorough investigation of all the records and evidence has been taken from Australian officials who held responsible positions at the time. This investigation has turned up no evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations that radioactive waste was brought from nuclear power stations in Britain for burial at Maralinga.

  2. The assurance given by Mr Garland in 1972 remains valid regarding risk. In addition to debris from experiments carried out in the area, some small quantities of radioactive material from the following sources are also buried at Maralinga:

    1. washings from British service aircraft which participated in nuclear tests at Christmas Island in 1957-58 and which later flew to Edinburgh Airfield for cleaning and maintenance.
    2. nuclear medical waste from the University of Adelaide.
Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. Let me now turn to the record of the present Minister for Defence. On 9 December 1976 1 asked the Minister whether secret atomic trigger tests were conducted at Maralinga between 1958 and 1961. In reply he said:

I am not aware of any explosion that took place between 1958 and 1961. I am aware of certain trials which I distinguish from explosions, as presently advised, that took place.

In a letter to me dated 3 February 1 977 he said:

The details of these experiments were and remain classified.

However, in a book entitled Scientist at the White House, which is the private diary of George Kistiakowsky, who was President Eisenhower’s scientific adviser, we find an entry for Wednesday, 30 March 1960 on pages 289 and 290 where the following remarks appear:

Penney reached independantly the same definition as I did regarding the one-point safety tests, namely, that so long as the total explosive force (of HE and nuclear charge) is due predominantly to the HE explosion and the nuclear reaction is just observable by instruments, this should be called an experiment and not a weapons test.

Penney, of course, was head of the United Kingdom Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. This book was published before the Minister said that such details were classified. Was the Minister aware of these details? Did he know that they were on the public record? If not, why not? If he did not know, why did his Department not know? Clearly the statement which he made in the letter to me on 3 February 1977 was quite false in that regard. Clearly his statement to the Parliament in reply to my question on 9 December that no explosion took place between 1958 and 1961 was also false. The reply he gave to the Leader of the. Opposition (Mr Hayden) this morning was also false. The comments of George Kistiakowsky show that the Minister’s sharp distinction between explosions and trials was more than misleading. It was a deception, if not by the Minister, then certainly by his departmental advisers. I have stressed that all along. If we look at what Lord Penney said on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program AM last Friday, the Minister’s deception becomes clearer. He said that radioactive material was tested in little mock explosions at Maralinga. I stress the word ‘explosions’ and keep saying it because the Minister said that there were no explosions. Lord Penney referred to the explosions as small nuclear tests. The strong inference was that these tests were subsequent to the atomic tests of 1957. We have had no explanation by the Minister for Defence of his statement in the House on 9 December 1976 and his letter to me on 3 February 1977. We do not know whether the Minister for Defence has been fully informed by his Department- and it seems that he has not yet been properly informed- or whether his Department has been fully informed by the British authorities. We in this Parliament do not know the full story of what has taken place at Maralinga.

There are further examples of the Government’s confusion. On 9 August 1977 the then Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Newman, in a statement announcing a scientific study of the Maralinga site, said:

Radioactive substances remaining after the low yield atomic tests at Maralinga from 1955to 1963 . . .

This contradicts the statement by the Minister for Defence on 9 December 1976. 1 seek permission to have that incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1734

QUESTION

SCIENTISTS TO STUDY MARALINGA AREA

The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Kevin Newman, today announced that a scientific study of the possible dispersal of radioactive material in the Maralinga area of South Australia has commenced.

The survey will provide information on land within the former Maralinga atomic test range which could be returned to general use. It would also contribute to general scientific knowledge. Field work for the survey will begin on Thursday, 1 1 August.

Mr Newman said the survey is being carried out under the guidance of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council supported by the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development and the Department of Defence. Specialist technical assistance is also being provided by the Australian Radiation Laboratory, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the Bureau of Meteorology and two South Australian Departments, the Department of Mines and the Department for the Environment.

The survey had been recommended to the Government by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. Its purpose is to study the possible dispersal by natural agencies of radioactive substances remaining after the low yield atomic tests at Maralinga from 1 955 to 1 963.

The survey team will include experts in ecology, health physics, meteorology, geology/hydrology. The field party will collect soil and biological samples for subsequent laboratory analysis. The analysis phase of the survey and the later processing and interpretation of the data will take some months to complete.

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. We have had no explanation from the Government of this contradiction. The Minister for Defence says that there were no explosions after 1956 and the then

Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development admitted that there were low yield atomic explosions through to 1 963. The public is left in the dark. The Government has had over a year to explain this contradiction, but in its usual arrogant manner it chose not to do so. Some hysteria has been created about the possibility of terrorists acquiring the plutonium which is buried at Maralinga. The Minister for Defence, not the Opposition, raised this matter in a Cabinet submission which mentioned a discrete mass of plutonium of about half a kilogram. But a statement issued yesterday by the British High Commission said that there were six separate containers of plutonium. It therefore appears that the Government had not been fully informed by the British authorities when the Cabinet submission was presented.

It may be that the difficulties for terrorists of acquiring this material are very great- I make that clear- but this is not the major issue. I stress that in my view this is not the major issue. It is a smokescreen for the serious environmental questions which are raised by the existence of 800 tonnes of radioactive rubble, including 20 kilograms of plutonium, which is buried at Maralinga. In a letter to me on 3 February 1977 the Minister for Defence said that it was essentially a matter of long term environmental management. I seek leave to have that letter incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows- 3 Feb 1977

Dear Mr Uren,

In Parliament on 9 December 1976 you asked a Question about British experiments at Maralinga in the late 1950s and early 1 960s. I promised to make inquiries and respond to you before Parliament resumed.

This important matter, which is essentially one of longterm environmental management, has become confused and distorted by several unfounded allegations, in particular that an unexploded nuclear weapon is buried at Maralinga; that radioactive waste was brought from British nuclear power stations and buried at Maralinga; and that about 800 tonnes of nuclear waste material, including plutonium, is buried at Maralinga, which is what the South Australian Minister for Mines and Energy was reported on 20 December 1976 to have said.

Thorough investigations of all the records and evidence taken from Australian officials who held responsible positions at the time have revealed no evidence at all supporting or in any way substantiating these allegations.

The radioactive debris at Maralinga is derived from three sources- British nuclear tests and experiments carried out in that area some fifteen to twenty-five years ago; washings from British service aircraft which participated in the nuclear tests at Christmas Island in 1957-58 and which later flew to Edinburgh airfield for cleaning and maintenance, and nuclear medical waste from the University of Adelaide.

This debris was disposed of in various ways, including storage in steel and lead boxes, burial in pits, covering with massive concrete slabs, ploughing in, and fencing and area control. While it is true that some 800 tonnes of rubble are buried in 21 pits, this contains some 20 kilograms of plutonium and it is a mistake to describe it all as ‘nuclear waste material’.

These arrangements were incorporated in a report by the British Government so that residual radioactivity at sites of their tests would be recorded for posterity. This report, issued in 1968, is held by both the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments.

Surveys of the Maralinga area were undertaken in 1967 and 1 972 by the Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee. In December last year Professor H. J. deBruin of Flinders University accompanied a party of South Australian Department of Health officials on a survey in and around the Maralinga township. He reported ‘that no trace of radioactivity in excess of natural background radiation was detectable on or near the dump’.

These past surveys have not to date established a requirement for any Government to institute additional or different control and safety measures. But the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council recently recommended- in December 1976- that a further survey be made and the Government is taking steps to arrange this.

Should a need for any new measures become apparent this Government, and I have no doubt its successors, will take appropriate action. I know that you will agree that this matter must be kept under regular review and brought regularly to the attention of the Government of the day by AIRAC or its successors in the future.

You referred also to the ‘moratorium’ during which the British Government, along with the U.S. and Soviet Governments, accepted a self-imposed obligation to refrain from the testing of nuclear weapons. This lasted from September 1 958 until September 1961, when, you will recall, the Soviet Government resumed testing of nuclear weapons. During this period the then British Government conducted various experiments at Maralinga. The details of these experiments were, and remain classified. The British Government has advised that:

No atomic devices were exploded during the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing between 1958 and 196 1, and no unexploded nuclear device was buried. ‘

I do not consider that a Royal Commission is required into these matters or could serve any useful purpose now. The forthcoming environmental survey should add further data assisting governmental decisions about the continuing secure management of the material at Maralinga. As I say, it will be important to keep under regular review the adequacy of the protective and control measures in the Maralinga area.

Yours sincerely,

  1. J. KILLEN

The Hon. T. Uren, M.P.,

Deputy Leader of the Opposition, 3c-5 1st Floor,

Granville Towers, 10 Bridge Street,

Granville, N.S.W. 2 142

Mr UREN:

– I thank the House. This is where the Government’s record is most disturbing. For a start, the Minister for Defence says that there are 20 kilograms of plutonium at Maralinga; but I am privately informed that actually 41 kilograms is buried at Maralinga. Nowhere has the Government set out in a straightforward way what radioactive materials are buried there. We have never been told for how long these materials will remain toxic, for how long we will have to continue to monitor them and how much that will cost the Australian taxpayers. We know that plutonium is deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. We do not know where these materials could move in the ground water and in the food chains over these long periods of time. The glib answers of the Minister for Supply in 1972 were that the materials had a half-life of 15 to 20 years. We know now that that is nonsense and that the plutonium is there. He had plenty of opportunity to correct himself but he did not do so.

In a letter to me on 3 February 1 977 the Minister for Defence made reassuring remarks about surveys of the Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee, but we know how reliable they were. That Committee was shown to be a group of nuclear hawks. It consistently supported French nuclear tests in the Pacific and said that they presented no health risk. That view has been totally discredited in this country. It is well known that the Ranger inquiry commissioners were less happy with the objectivity of the Committee’s most prominent member, Professor Sir Ernest Titterton. The Minister for Defence also mentioned the 1968 report of the British Government’s waste which remains at Maralinga. But where is that report? In signing a memorandum of agreement at that time the Austraiian Government sold out the Australian people’s interest to the British Government. What protection has the Australian Government against the enormous cost of policing this plutonium over the years. The waste at Maralinga has never been made public for independent assessment. It is the extreme secrecy of the Liberal-National Country party governments and the gross negligence of the nuclear hawks which advise them which has left future generations of Australians with the legacy of Rum Jungle and now of Maralinga.

On 9 August last year the then Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development announced a scientific study into the Maralinga wastes. Why did it take so long? Why was not this done in 1972 when this matter was first raised? There are serious health questions associated with Maralinga which have not yet been answered. I was contacted last year by a group of men who had been Commonwealth policemen at Maralinga in the 1950s. Four of their group of seven have died of cancer since working at Maralinga. This sample may not prove anything in real terms but it raises serious questions which must be further investigated. But the Government refuses to do this. The United States Government is now engaged in a study of the health of personnel previously involved in atomic tests. I asked the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) on 1 1 April this year whether he would institute a similar inquiry but he refused to do so. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the question and answer.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Atomic Tests: Radiation (Question No. 921)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 1 April 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the United States Government’s follow-up study on personnel who were involved in their past atomic testing programs.
  2. Will the Australian Government institute a similar inquiry amongst all persons who worked at Maralinga, South Australia, during the years 1 950 to 1 965 in order to ascertain what ill-effects they may have suffered.
Mr Hunt:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. All personnel working at Maralinga were subject to stringent health procedures. Their activities in the field were strictly controlled and they were constantly monitored to ensure that they were not exposed to dangerous radiation.

The majority of those who were conducting and monitoring the tests at Maralinga were UK personnel. Any follow-up studies on those persons would be a matter for the UK Government to decide upon.

Because of the stringent monitoring procedures undertaken at the time and the fact that they were not exposed to dangerous radiation, there is no proposal to institute studies on Australians who were in support of the UK activities at Maralinga from the rear areas.

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. The Minister tries to brush the issue aside by saying that strict monitoring procedures were undertaken at the time. This is irrelevant. Cancers do not show up for many years after the cause. What efforts were made to monitor Aboriginals who were in the vicinity of Maralinga during and after the tests? We have heard nothing from the Government on these serious charges and questions raised by Mr Connolly, a business man of Perth, Western Australia in December 1976. The whole Maralinga story is one of negligence, dishonesty and secrecy on behalf of Liberal-National Country party governments. The public would know nothing of the serious unresolved problems associated with Maralinga if it were not for the courageous attitude of a few people who previously worked at Maralinga and some public servants. I must give credit to Mr Brian Toohey, a journalist from the Australian Financial Review.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable members time has expired.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I seek leave to make a personal explanation because I have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member for Hindmarsh may proceed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) stated during the course of his address that I among others should have known, or did know, that there had been this storage of plutonium at Maralinga. The innuendo at any rate was that I was supplied with the information which has been extracted from the present Minister over the last couple of years. The Labor Cabinet was never told any of the facts relating to Maralinga. I am satisfied that the former Prime Minister was not told. If he was told he certainly did not tell the Cabinet. The Minister for Defence in the Labor Government has assured the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) that he was not told. The Minister for Defence went on to suggest that even though I was not the Minister for Defence, as a member of the Labor Cabinet I had an obligation to seek the information.

Mr Killen:

– On a point of order, by any test of parliamentary procedure this is not a personal explanation. It is an argument, and an argument should be heard in the normal course of debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The pointtaken by the Minister for Defence is not irrelevant. The honourable member for Hindmarsh had reached the point at which I felt obliged to require him to address himself more specifically to the point on which he claimed to have been misrepresented. I ask him to proceed to do exactly that.

Mr Killen:

– On a further point of order, the honourable gentleman has not spoken in this debate. A personal explanation can only find its fountain of origin in the fact that the member who claims to have been misrepresented has spoken in the debate and another member has misabused what he has had to say. I submit with firmness but with respect that the only basis on which the honourable member for Hindmarsh can intervene in this debate is not by way of personal explanation but by way of argument.

Mr Young:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. The point of order raised by the Minister does not stand up. The Minister in a speech he made just a couple of hours ago in this place made an accusation against the honourable member for Hindmarsh. Obviously the honourable member has the right to defend himself against that accusation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh has the indulgence of the Chair to make a brief statement on the basis that he has been misrepresented. The honourable member may proceed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The facts are that the department deliberately withheld the information from our Government, from the governments preceding us and from the governments since we were in office. I know- and I can say now from my own personal knowledge- that there is at least one officer of the department, whom I may yet name, who has boasted of the fact that he has withheld information and has told the National Security Council of the United States that Defence will not give information relating to defence to the Australian politicians nor to the Government because it does not trust them with such information.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh is now debating the matter. I ask him to state briefly the matter in which he personally was misrepresented.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I have been misrepresented because it has been alleged that I knew. It was said that if I did not know I should have known. The Joint Intelligence Organisation has deliberately withheld this information from us and has boasted about it to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr Killen:

– I rise to order. This is an intolerable state of affairs. This is not a point of order; it is argument, and argument, Mr Deputy Speaker, must be presented to this House only by way of participation in debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Defence is in error if he believes that the honourable member for Hindmarsh is speaking to a point of order. He has the indulgence of the Chair to make a statement on the score of his misrepresentation. I feel that the honourable member for Hindmarsh is rather exceeding the entitlement flowing from the indulgence of the Chair. I ask him very briefly to round off the point on which he claims to have been misrepresented.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes. I say categorically that the Labor Cabinet was not given the information which has since been squeezed out of the Minister for Defence. Not one of the former Ministers who were named by the Minister for Defence during the course of his remarks as having this knowledge, or as having been in a position to get this knowledge, was told or was put in a position of knowing about this. The Minister for Defence has been deceived by the Department, and the head of the Department ought to be sacked.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-To make any sense at all of the convoluted logic of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) would require that I was a Nobel Prize winner in atomic physics. Since I do not claim capacities in that field I merely want to bring back to this debate the degree of logic which was introduced into it by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). It was plain from the Minister’s opening statement that the problem of plutonium waste disposal in the Maralinga area has been handled in the best interests of the Australian people, and no matter what the Opposition has cared to say to refute this it has utterly failed to do so.

We have just heard an ex-Minister of the previous Administration admit in this House that the Ministers of that Administration were incapable of controlling the bureaucracy which was meant to advise them in the first place. We were told earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), when Minister for the Environment and Conservation, established on behalf of the Labor Government the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. If he was doing his job, if the Council was doing its job and if he was able to advise Cabinet of what that organisation was all about, he most certainly would have been in a position to know what was going on at Maralinga. Let us get the situation in perspective. This is Australia. It is not the United States of America, Great Britain or France. We have no massive industry here involved in plutonium or atomic physics. We do not have a major problem of waste disposal at this stage. But we have allowed this debate, led essentially by the honourable member for Reid, to become a massive emotional issue.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Scaremongering.

Mr CONNOLLY:

– It is a total example of scaremongering. We are trying to demonstrate, and it has been effectively demonstrated ever since the early atomic testing commenced at Maralinga and later at Emu, that at all times, within the confines of known scientific knowledge of the time, all actions were taken to ensure that the necessary protective measures were introduced at those locations. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), quoted a news release of the British High Commission out of context. Let me put the matter into context. The news release stated:

Nuclear experimentation at Maralinga ended in 1963, after which is was decided to decontaminate the site. The detailed requirements for this operation were laid down by the Australian authorities and these were fully implemented by the UK in 1 967. When independent Australian surveys had confirmed that the site was radiologIcally safe, a Termination Agreement ending the arrangements for British use of the atomic weapons proving ground at Maralinga was signed in September 1 968.

I trust that we are all aware of the problems associated with atomic waste. But let me make a simple reference to the work of Mr Justice Parker who, in commenting in his report on the United Kingdom Windscale inquiry, made this observation:

It is not true that plutonium is highly radioactive. Its principal isotope, plutonium 239, is relatively stable and as a consequence its halflife is very long and its radioactivity per unit mass very low.

Mr Justice Parker went on to say:

It is not true that in all circumstances very small amounts of plutonium are lethal. Insoluble particles when inhaled are certainly hazardous in small quantities. Considerably larger amounts could be eaten without appreciable harm.

The honourable member for Reid has talked about the effects of radiation on the health of Aborigines, the policemen and other personnel who have been working in this area and so forth. He apparently wishes to ignore the simple fact that the health survey which was conducted in the area of personnel involved in those projects in 1972 and the survey which is now being conducted again by the AIRAC shows that, on the earlier definition of the evidence, there is nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that the plutonium in the ground, which is buried considerably below the surface of the area, and is surrounded by metal and concrete, has demonstrated any physical ill effects on personnel within the general area. The AIRAC is conducting another survey which is in the process of being completed. I hope that we will see the results of it in the near future. But at this point there is absolutely no evidence- I emphasise that there is no evidence at all- for the honourable member for Reid to make allegations of this type in the Parliament.

The survey of as early as August 1972 demonstrates quite clearly the total sense of responsibility of this Administration in terms of the wellbeing of the Aboriginal community and the personnel involved in these projects.

Let us look at the other two questions which are raised in this glorious motion of censure of the Government which has been moved by the Opposition. Firstly, it deals with the disposal of plutonium. I made the point earlier that Australia, unlike other nations, is not a primary user of large quantities of radioactive substances. At this point in time we do not have a major problem of knowing what we will do with it, but what has been decided through negotiation between the Commonwealth Government and the States is that the States are responsible for solving this problem within the definition of their boundaries. As far as the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is concerned they are perfectly able to solve the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste on their own. The third point raised by the Opposition is that we need to establish a nuclear safeguards, safety and securities commission. Again, the Opposition has simply chosen to ignore the fact that the Australian Safeguards Office, which has already been established, is the body which in fact dictates how the Australian Government is to maintain standards acceptable to the Australian Atomic Energy Agency and other international bodies, to maintain standards in accordance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and other agreements.

This is exactly the sort of organisation this country needs. We do not need a massive commission. We do not need the type of organisation which exists in the United States of America because the ground rules relevant to this nation’s involvement in this area are so totally different to what are found in other countries. Quite clearly, the situation is similar to that which we find so often in this House. The Opposition is basing its argument in this case on what is nothing more than a leaked Cabinet document. That document having been leaked, various people- of course, members of the Opposition are certainly not angels in this field- have demonstrated their capacity to quote it out of context and to use bits and pieces of it to support a case which cannot stand up under close scientific examination. We may soon reach the situation when Cabinet submissions will have to be written not for the benefit of the Ministers of the government of the day but for the benefit of the media because within 24 hours of such submissions being written the person responsible has to be prepared to defend himself before the television cameras, on radio and in the newspapers of Australia.

I put it quite fundamentally that no government, irrespective of its political colour, will be able to conduct its affairs in the interests of the Australian nation if time after time we allow ourselves to become baited on the hook- that is all we are doing- of some person who wishes to leak a matter which is in fact a Cabinet document and a Cabinet secret. The Opposition today is encouraging civil servants and other people to break the law. The Opposition is prepared to do this because it does not have the capacity in its ranks to oppose the Government on constructive grounds. It expects civil servants who are supposed to have taken an oath of loyalty to breach that sacred trust to serve its short-term petty political aims. That is all members of the Opposition stand for. They are not interested in the welfare of Australia, they are not interested in the system of Parliament and they are not interested in the Westminster system of government.

At no time has the Minister raised in this House a current or imminent threat in terms of access to the plutonium which has been found in the area of Maralinga. Should access be gained to plutonium waste, the submission put forward by the Minister makes it quite clear what the position will be. Should at any time in the future some unforseen circumstance show that it is possible to gain access to the material, even though at the present time with given technology this is not so, obviously it is the responsibility of the government of the day to take every conceivable protective device necessary to ensure that the interests of the Australian people are always covered. That is precisely what the Minister did. If he had not prepared that Cabinet submission, if he had been prepared to go along, as the Opposition was when in government, painfully unaware of the realities and then to come into the Parliament years later and say: ‘We did not know because nobody told us’, and if he was to demonstrate an incapacity as a Minister, the Opposition would have something to argue about. The Minister went to the Cabinet because he had the facts. He had to put them on the record. What is so sad in terms of the future of this country is that no longer can a secret document be regarded with the sanctity that it should be regarded when it is taken before a Cabinet and considered by the elected government of the day.

According to new criteria of the International Atomic Energy Agency- the IAEA- which the Whitlam Administration agreed to accept in 1974, the Government has been required to examine all records of previous nuclear experiments to see whether any contaminated material was buried in Australia in relation to which the new and very rigid criteria of the IAEA could perhaps apply. As I have said, we were required to do that under the NPT and as a signatory to the IAEA agreement. As a Government, we have carried out our responsibility, which is what the Opposition, when in government, flatly refused to do. Honourable members opposite now stand up and defend themselves for their inaction by saying that they did not know the gun was loaded. Obviously, the IAEA requires that any recoverable plutonium must be adequately safeguarded. The Agency’s new rigid criteria were framed for the very reason that it appreciated that what might be unthinkable today could nevertheless become a possibility at some time in the future. If the plutonium is recoverable it will be recovered but it is the only viable position that this Government, in all conscience, could take on this particular matter. I commend the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) for the lucidity of his explanation. In relation to this matter the people of Australia have nothing to fear but fear itself, a fear which is being generated on this occasion by an utterly irresponsible Opposition which when in government had access to all the files, to exactly the same files to which the Government has access today. Members of the Labor Government chose not to act, perhaps because they could not read. That is for them to decide. They should not come in here three years later and complain, because when they were in Government, when they had the responsibility for the welfare of the Australian people, they demonstrated a total incapacity to carry it out.

An allegation has also been made by the honourable member for Reid and others that perhaps Great Britain breached the moratorium on nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. There is no evidence that he has put forward, there is no evidence that any member of the Opposition has put forward this evening, to demonstrate that any nuclear experiments conducted after the completion of nuclear tests in the atmosphere breached in any sense the moratorium on nuclear explosions. I accept the statement of the British Government and I quote it for what it is. The British Government has stated that no atomic devices were exploded during the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing between 19S8 and 1961. I accept that not merely on trust but because I believe that it is logical that that position should be accepted. It is not entirely beyond credibility that the British could have detonated an atomic bomb in the atmosphere at the

Maralinga-Emu area and concealed the explosion from every one of the many Australian scientists, officials and servicemen who were present but how is it then that at every single nuclear test over those years many Australians were present as scientists, servicemen and organisers of the explosion sites? They know what it looks like. They know what the mushroom cloud of an atomic test is all about. Now we are being told that somehow or other the British Government may have conducted secret clandestine tests on Australian soil surrounded by Australian scientists and servicemen. As I said, if there is any logic at all in the argument of the Opposition, it is quite obvious that it will not stand up to close examination in this case.

In 1968 the British Atomic Energy Weapons Research Establishment made a report concerning material buried at Maralinga. That report, as the Minister has pointed out already, was the Pearce committee report. It was accepted by the Australian Government and last year, 1977, the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council appointed a further ad hoc committee to consider the material buried at Maralinga. The Government has done all that can be done to make sure that the situation is totally safe for all those concerned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has moved an amendment which is fierce in its terms and which makes savage allegations. It is an amendment deserving of an answer, albeit in a brief space of time. I seek to trespass upon the time of the House to answer the amendment and some of the charges made by my friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Central to the honourable gentleman’s speech this afternoon was his lamentation that 15 former Ministers in Whitlam led Labor Governments had not been told about Maralinga and what was buried there. In shorthand, that is the central complaint that came from the honourable gentleman. He presented it as an indictment, firstly, of the Public Service which cannot answer for itself, and, secondly, of the Government because it did not tell the honourable gentlemen. The truth is that 15 of them -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You made the accusation.

Mr KILLEN:

– I listened to the honourable gentleman in, I thought, almost unbecoming silence. Perhaps he can listen to me. I know it hurts him.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– The truth hurts.

Mr KILLEN:

– I know it hurts you. I named the 15. 1 will name them again.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You name 15.

Mr KILLEN:

– You cannot take it. You are a squealer, a little squealer. There were 15 Ministers and you were one of them. What did these 15 Ministers, including the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), with his fierce, passionate interest in nuclear matters, do? They acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1974. That was their action. One would have thought that when they acceded to the Treaty one of the 15 would have turned to someone and said: Have we got any obligation under this Treaty?’

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Didn’t they do it! Oh, come on!

Mr KILLEN:

– No, there was not a word from them. Surely one of them would have been able to say it. I suspect that one of the 15 would have been at Maralinga during Operation Buffalo when the bombs were exploded. Surely one of them would have said: ‘Oh, we must have some obligation. ‘ What a commentary on their powerful sense of inquisitiveness. Not one of the 1 5 had the cerebral sense of inquisition to say: ‘We may have some obligation.’ The Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty refers directly to the International Atomic Energy Agency with all of its requirements. That agreement was entered into by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1974 and these 15, this football team of inquiry, all determined to find out what is going on -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– What about your team?

Mr KILLEN:

– Then, one of them, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), under the thoroughly specious pretence of making a personal explanation, said this evening that he knew nothing about it. The South Australian Government has had the Pearce committee’s report on Maralinga for years. What a commentary on the powerful state of relations between the Whitlam led Labor Government and the Dunstan led Labor Government in South Australia. Now they are complaining about it. If the honourable gentleman reads the Pearce committee’s report he will see that plutonium is referred to. Then, there is the inquiry of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council commissioned by another of the 1 5, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass). This report contains repeated references to plutonium. Am I to understand that

Ministers appoint committees of inquiry and do not bother to inquire, even over breakfast, what is going on or to say: ‘What are you doing? Tell us something about it. ‘ The AIRAC report contains a map reproduced faithfully from the Pearce committee’s report but not one of the 15 bothered to inquire about it. That is the central feature of this argument and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to exculpate the 15 by saying: ‘Nobody told us about it.’ I thought the whole purpose of ministerial authority was to inquire into what is going on. One of the scurrilous charges made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this afternoon was to claim, under the cloak of anonymity, that desperate companion of the desperate -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Who?

Mr KILLEN:

– You.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-I would have to be a companion of yours to be desperate.

Mr KILLEN:

– I reckon you are desperate indeed. Not one of the 15 bothered to inquire in the years 1974 and 1975. 1 admit that they had some distractions in 1974 and that things worsened a bit in 1975 but such was the powerful, passionate, continuing interest of the 1 5 that they did not even bother to inquire what happened at Maralinga. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was acceded to and signed with all the palaver in the world. Then the IAEA agreement was entered into, but not one of the 15 had the sternness of character to say: ‘I want to know what is going on’. How does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition explain the attitude of the South Australian Government?

Let us proceed a little further with this matter. This afternoon, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sought to say that the British Government has not told him what is going on. Has he ever heard of a chap called Harold Wilson? I thought that Mr Whitlam and Sir Harold Wilson were on the best of speaking terms. I would have thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at that time, the honourable member for Reid, would have said: ‘Look, Gough, why don’t you ring up Harold and ask him what is happening’. Not a word was said, despite the splendid, lively relationship which existed between the two men.

The second argument which was presented by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this afternoon relates to the description of plutonium. I have already adverted to the fact that there are reports on this matter on record. The same records which are available to me are available to the honourable gentleman. In 1974 and in the years that followed the scientists turned to these reports. They reached the conclusion that some of the material was potentially recoverable. The honourable member for Reid has difficulty in understanding the term ‘potentially recoverable’. Let me seek to illustrate it to him. The honourable member for Reid is potentially intelligent. However, there will need to be a great deal of excavation before that potential is realised. The Australian Safeguards Office came into existence following the accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the IAEA agreement. As a consequence of that, the scientists wanted to know whether we had an obligation pursuant to those two agreements. That is the test. If the obligation did exist and if there were no response by this Government, then we would be deserving not of mere reproach or rebuke, but of a very severe indictment being presented against us. Because of that I, as the custodian of these documents- I have no other ministerial responsibility- said to Cabinet that consideration must be given to this matter. That is the central feature.

The honourable member for Reid has passed over to me a book. The magnificent simplicity of his mind is such that he agrees with anything written that suits his mind. He had no sense of inquisitiveness or inquiry when he was in government. However, here is a book written by a character in relation to whom the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this afternoon said- and I quite agree with him- that one would have to cough one’s way through the name in order to pronounce it. We have no opportunity of producing the author of the book here and cross examining him. The honourable gentleman says that it is written there; ergo it is true. Yet it suited him not to believe me when I pointed out in a letter written to him on 3 February 1977 what the United Kingdom Government had told me, namely, that no atomic explosion had occurred at Maralinga in those years. Oh no, he did not want to believe that. Why is it that he believes something which is written in the book which suits his cause and purpose, yet he will not believe any information supplied to him on the authority of a British Labour government? He can put that in his pipe and smoke it. Does the honourable member intend to say that the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is an accomplished liar and a polished tergiversator? Does he intend to say that Sir Harold Wilson misled this Government and did not even bother to inform the last Labor Government of the British Government’s actions? With the utmost of goodwill I say to my honourable friends opposite that the facts that have been given to them come from the records that are available both to this Government and to the Opposition. The facts are that the Opposition has elected to say: ‘Ah, we did not bother to send for them’. That is an indictment of the Opposition. On the basis of the argument presented by the Opposition today, I say that honourable members opposite are deserving of a long time in opposition.

Question put:

That the words proposed be left out (Mr Lionel Bowen’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 66

NOES: 29

Majority…… 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1743

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11P.M.: ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

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

– I seek leave to move a motion in the following form:

That Standing Order 48a- Adjournment of the Houseand Standing Order 103- the 1 1 o’clock Rule- be suspended for this sitting.

I trust that it will not be necessary to sit late, but the Government does wish to conclude tonight the debate on the Social Services Amendment Bill and the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill. I therefore seek leave to move a motion in the form I have outlined.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to explain our attitude to this move by the Government. I do not wish to hold up proceedings for too long. We do not approve of the way in which the House is being used. It is not possible to finish by 11 o’clock. A number of our people have worked extremely hard preparing what they wish to say in this debate. It is an extremely important debate. It is one of the biggest blunders the Government has made in the Budget. Before granting leave to the Minister I put on record that we are opposed to this move. It will go through anyhow but we are opposed to the manner in which the House is being used to conduct the business of government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is leave granted to the Leader of the House?

Opposition members- No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

page 1743

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

– I move:

Mr Scholes:

– The Government gagged the taxation Bills in this House yesterday because it said they were urgent. It has now given the Senate two days to debate the Bills. There is a question–

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Scholes:

– There is a question before the Chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair has not put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I repeat that yesterday the Government guillotined as a matter of urgency income tax Bills through here in order to avoid debate in the House which is responsible for the financial affairs of the nation. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) has made it quite clear that the Senate can have two full days to debate those Bills if it wishes. I want to know why the Government is afraid to debate in this chamber. On this occasion it is going to force Bills through this House that cannot be considered in the Senate tomorrow because the Senate has already given the time to the income tax Bills. These Bills will not be considered in the Senate until next week.

The Opposition, in seeking to test the legislative committee proposition- and there are some extremely complicated clauses in these Bills which are coming before this House with a lot of explanation required as to meaning, effect and manner in which they will be implemented by the Government- believes it is appropriate that as it had a party meeting today and could not have given notice before today of its intention to move to a legislative committee position, should be able to test the new system by having these Bills referred to a legislative committee. The Minister’s proposition in suspending Standing Orders is to ram the Bills through the House so that proper examination cannot take place in this chamber.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-(New England-Leader of the House)- I make it clear that I am only moving a Standing Order 48a- Adjournment of the House- and Standing Order 103- the 1 1 o’clock Rule- be suspended for this sitting. It means that there is plenty of time to debate the measures. What it means is that we are adjourning at a later hour instead of adjourning at 10.30 p.m. as would normally be the case.

Mr STEWART:
Grayndler

-Can we have it written into Hansard that the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) is not going to doublecross us again? Can we have it written into Hansard that the social legislation that is about to come before the House will be given due and proper consideration by the members of this House? This House is the House that represents the people. Members of this House have the closest contact with the men and women throughout Australia. This Government will allow the other chamber to talk on and on and on about this legislation. We are going to have a cognate debate of the Social Services Amendment Bill. We are going to have a cognate debate of the National Health Bill, and the National Health Bill and the social services amendments that were announced in the Budget are now the cause of this Government ‘s unpopularity.

In most of the electorates in New South Wales approximately 60 to 75 per cent of the people voted for the Labor Government last Saturday. I want to know why the Minister for Primary Industry, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the back bench members of this Government in this House are all running scared. You talk a lot about freedom of speech and the rights of individuals, but you are taking away from the members on this side the right to express an opinion on why you have put a means test on pensioners over seventy. You have changed the health scheme so that nobody in Australia, including the Minister himself, understands what is in front of the people of Australia after 1 November 1978.

Why is the Government running scared? Is it afraid to allow us to express our opinions here in this House? As I said, it has allowed the House that it used in 1975 to get rid of a duly and properly elected government to talk on and on and on. Those people in that House have to face the electors only once every six years. This is the House that counts, and the Government is now trying to push through a motion abolishing the 1 1 o’clock rule so that it can start to administer by exhaustion. During the Committee stage of the legislation I judge that it will continually move the gag. I ask: Will the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair), who is at the table, give a clear undertaking that we will not sit through until 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. in order to get this legislation through? I issue this threat: If we do sit through, I will see that every rule is pulled out of the Standing Orders in order to frustrate this Government in its efforts to take away the rights of members on this side of the House, the members of the House of Representatives, who truly and properly represent the people of Australia.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

-There is no man in this Parliament to whom I can honestly pay greater personal respect than I pay to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr

Stewart). He is a brave and gallant Austraiian who fought in the Battle. We few, we band of friends, have sat in this place and watched the various governments over the years. We know full well that there have been arguments about an entitlement to speak.

Mr Cohen:

– Forward the Buffs.

Mr GRAHAM:

– The honourable member may make rude remarks about British regiments, but let me tell him that they are regiments who fought for his country. I hold the view, side by side with the honourable member for Grayndler, that one may not make rude remarks about the Irish or the Welsh or the Scottish regiments. Speaking as a Scot, I want it to be understood in this place that the great vulgarity we find in our democracy is an apprehension and an understanding that we must all see to be related to secrecy. My friend the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen)- I say ‘my friend’- will not stand up in this House and contradict that remark. My friend the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has had the ability and the quality and the understanding to be in this place for some time and with other people on occasions he has been able to appreciate these problems. If we are to be faced by problems which the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), for example, might find so difficult, then let us understand that we are going to become a group of people divided and afflicted by difficulties, and we should not be. We are a nation. We belong together and we have an understanding.

Dr Klugman:

-I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for the honourable member for North Sydney in this debate to make his pre-selection speech?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! There is no point of order.

Mr GRAHAM:

-I should have thought that in that event my colleague and friend from a distant part- I understand it is either Bucharest or Romania- might have been a little more vulgar in his assessment of me. Let me make it clear that my ancestors came from Scotland and my ancestors stood to fight Bonaparte on the dawn of 18 June.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-It must be obvious to everyone now that consideration of the most important Social Services Amendment Bill and Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill under present circumstances would be reprehensible. These matters should have the most serious consideration. The Opposition objected yesterday to the way in which a multiplicity of bills were put together and rushed through this House. It was made known to us that if the vote had been split and such as the taxing of annual leave and long service leave had been put as separate issues some members of the Government parties would have considered voting against them. That will never be tested. Now we find that other Bills are to be rushed through late at night. At least nine speakers are listed and three hours and ten minutes is available for debate. Obviously if all the speakers take up their full time the debate on these matters of the utmost importance will go to 12.15 a.m. or 12.20 a.m., when no one in Australia will be able to hear it. This Government’s only tactic is to put these Bills through on Wednesday when the House of Representatives is not being broadcast- to rush them through late at night, if necessary. The Bills will not be debated in the Senate until next week. As the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Stewart) has said, the Government is placing far more importance on the right of the Senate to debate the Bills than it is on the right of the House of government, the House of Representatives, to debate them.

Mr Graham:
Mr YOUNG:

-It should be obvious to all honourable members opposite that they are dragging this House down. They are making a spectacle of themselves and of the Administration in the way they are handling this business. What is the great rush? On the present sittings, the Parliament is due to complete its business at the end of November. Normally we would go into early December. What is the great rush in the Government trying to whack through all the Bills associated with the Budget in such a short debating period? The Government will not allow even its back benchers to speak. They have been told that on important matters such as social security they are allowed three speakers. Is that all the members who want to speak on the Government side? How is it that six of Opposition’s 38 members want to speak but only three of nearly 90 Government members want to speak? Are Government members ashamed to speak on these Bills? Are they bowing to the dictates of the rninistry, which is telling them that they are not allowed to speak? Are they bowing to they dictates of the ministry in not splitting the vote on some of these vicious measures which are part and parcel of the Budget Papers? The Government is just making an absolute spectacle of itself, and the results that occurred recently in New South Wales represent the opinion of this Government that is held throughout Australia. The Government is trying all sorts of devious means to get these measures through. The Government is doing anything at all- telling lies, deceiving the public and deceiving the Parliament- as long as it can rush these Bills through and keep everybody on the back benches tame. As was pointed out, it does not matter how much time is available for senators to speak in the Senate. They can have all the time they like. But when it comes to the pensioners of Australia, the Government is allowing only three speakers from each side of this House.

I say to those sitting on the Government back benches to have a good look at themselves because they are there for two more years while they bow to these sorts of dictates. They should have a look at the results of the Ballarat byelection in a few weeks’ time. Those honourable members opposite who are being cowered by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) and by the Ministry are closing their mouths rather than speaking on issues which are of the utmost importance to a wide range of people in the community. They are not game to speak. This legislation is being rushed through tonight in case anybody goes to water over the weekend. It is being rushed through in case the pensioners go to some of the back benchers of the Government and say: ‘Please, we want our pensions increased twice annually. That was the promise of the Government. Will you go back and vote for it?’ Honourable members opposite will say: ‘Yes, we will. We will try to convince our Party room’. But the Ministry is not going to allow that to happen. Yet that happened with the funeral benefits legislation. It happened with the proposal concerning the family allowance and the earnings of people such as newspaper boys. But it is not going to happen on some of these major issues. Every pensioner is going to lose $3 a week next year because of these measures- and they have to be rushed through tonight. What a spectacle of administration this is! It ought to be voted against. If the Government were doing the right thing by the Parliament it would bring the legislation on at a proper time tomorrow.

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

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is:

That the question be now put.

Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question has been put. I will hear the point of order of the honourable member for Newcastle.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I found the interjection of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) objectionable. The reason I did not interrupt then was that I did not want to stop my colleague who was in full flight. I ask that the interjection be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-No doubt the honourable member for Newcastle will be aware that points of order should be taken when the occasion arises.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am taking it now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The occasion has passed. There is no substance to the point of order. The Chair is not aware of the matter to which the honourable member was referring. Is a division required?

Mr Cohen:

– It is disgraceful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Morris:

– They are trying to stop their own member from speaking.

Dr Klugman:

– They have got two blokes sitting next to him, stopping him from speaking. They are holding him down.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will remain silent as will the honourable member for St George because the Chair is addressing the chamber. I exhort honourable members to conduct themselves in a manner which does not reflect so adversely on this Parliament, as has been the case for the last hour and a half or more. There is business before the House. If the honourable member for Newcastle is addressing his point of order to the question that there be a division of the House, he may proceed to take his point of order. The Chair is seeking direction from the left as to whether a division is required.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, if you did not hear the interjection of the honourable member for North Sydney, you were the only person in this chamber who did not hear it.

Mr Chapman:

– I didn’t hear it.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Well, if you did not hear it, you are stone motherless deaf.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle overlooks the fact that the left and the right of this chamber have only each other to put up with. The Chair has to put up with both sides. Is a division required?

Opposition members- Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The House will divide. Ring the bells.

The bells having been rung-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is:

That the question be now put.

They ayes will pass to the right of the Chair -

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Before you appoint tellers I would ask you to ascertain whether all honourable members have had the opportunity to position themselves in the chamber where they so wish. It is fairly obvious that the honourable member for North Sydney is not being allowed to do what he wishes in this chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for a Whip physically to restrain an honourable member from taking the place he obviously wishes to take?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. The Chair is not concerned with -

Mr Burns:

– Throw him out!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Isaacs will observe the forms of the House or I shall be obliged to deal with him. The Chair is not concerned with hypothetical points of order.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. During the period that the bells were ringing the Government Whip and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) quite visibly, quite clearly in front of the Parliament, sought to restrain the honourable member for North Sydney. They interfered and attempted to remove him from the chamber. I ask you to rule that such action by a Government Whip or a Minister or any member is an infringement of the rights and privileges of a member of this chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair was not in a position to observe whether the allegations

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 68

NOES: 30

Majority…… 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That Standing Order 48a (adjournment of house) and Standing Order 103 ( 1 1 o’clock rule) be suspended for this sitting.

The House divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Ayes………. 68

Noes………. 30

Majority……. 38

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There being 68 ayes and 30 noes, the question is resolved in the affirmative with an absolute majority.

page 1748

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 September, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– It is quite obvious that Government members are bursting with good spirits tonight- in spite of the steep rises in excise duty. It is a matter of melancholy record for the House that so many Government members tonight should treat such an important matter with such frivolity and careless indifference. I know that the amounts of money going to individuals are relatively small- an increase in the standard rate of pension of $51.45 to $53.20 a week-but the increase is important in that it vitally determines the living standards of great number of Australians. It affects literally millions of Australians- Australians who are amongst the most dependent, deprived and vulnerable in the community and who, in common with the great bulk of serious minded citizens in this community, genuinely believe that members of the Government would regard a debate on pensions and associated matters with the greatest earnestness. If those people had been in the Parliament tonight witnessing the behaviour of Government members they would have been appalled. They would have been disabused for all time if they ever believed that there was any genuine concern resting in the ranks of the Government towards the position of pensioners and people in this community who are dependent on social security benefits.

The behaviour of Government members tonight was deplorable. One Government member was even moved to seek to dissociate himself from his colleagues. He sought to leave the chamber. He was restrained in a completely improper way by the Government Whip. The outrageous behaviour of Government members and their insensitivity towards the most dependent and the most needy groups in the community who are covered by the matters we are going to discuss tonight were displayed in a way that brought no credit to the Government. I suggest to honourable members in the Government ranks who like to go back to their electorates and profess concern for pensioners at pensioners’ meeting that they extend the same kind of concern into the House tonight and, more than that, demand from the Government that there is a full and adequate debate of this important matter.

The Bill before this Parliament at present represents the most extensive and sustained assault upon social security benefits that this country has seen. This Bill continues the Government’s curious notion of welfare reform. ‘Wheelan the wrecker’ had the same approach- demolition with haste and without concern. It is a sad testimonial to a simple but unavoidable fact about the Fraser Government- one cannot trust the word of the Fraser Government and, least of all, the word of its leader. This Bill catalogues broken promise after broken promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Let us consider the Bill. Under this Bill the least well off, the aged and the invalid, are deprived of $60m of pension payments in the course of a full year so that big business can be supported by the Government. What sense of equity is there in that sort of policy? Supporting mothers have sacrifices imposed on them at the expense of their infants to keep intact the Prime Minister’s strange notions of the rights of the better off and the privileged in our community. Let us hear Government members stand up and defend that. The oldest people in the community, those over 70 years of age, henceforth will pay a $45 m penalty in a full year to assist wealthy mineral development corporations. What sort of support will Government members give to that sort of injustice? Mothers and infants will be denied maternity benefits so that the tax avoidance family trusts, devices used with such great effect by the Prime Minister and the deputy leader of his Party, can be preserved. Who amongst the Government ranks are going to justify that? Migrants and dependants will have benefits withdrawn so that the top income earners in the community can avoid a more equitable revenue contribution. Who amongst the Government ranks will excuse that? By their behaviour tonight Government members have shown that there is no concern about this rampant injustice which is going to be imposed upon the community as a consequence of the Bill now before the Parliament.

Students from poor homes and on austere students’ benefits will have family allowances withdrawn but well off people who have no real need, comparatively, for those benefits will remain unaffected. The unemployed without dependants will be starved into submission as a penalty for becoming the victims of Fraser’s steamroller economics. The unrelieved attrition against the unemployed who are under 18 years of age that has been experienced in the past three years continues unrelieved. Who amongst the Government ranks is going to justify and explain that sort of treatment? The dependent children of pensioners are exploited for the third budget in a row- the third consecutive Fraser Budget. Presumably in the view of Prime Minister Fraser their nutritional and other needs decline by the equivalent of the rate of inflation each year or, more obviously, those children starve a little more and are a little worse clothed each year because of this malign neglect. The Fraser Government saves money at the expense of poor children to pump up the profits of oil exploration companies.

This Bill represents miserable welfare policy. It reflects ice age social concern. It displays social welfare thinking at its most primitive and least caring. I recognise as well as anyone who has a basic understanding of the economic condition of this country the problems of handling the economy at present. Of course, there are certain priorities in handling the national economy such as bringing down inflation, but this should be done not at the cost of double digit unemployment or worse conditions for business, and certainly not at the cost of neglecting the needs of people who are totally or largely dependent on government policies for their livelihoods.

Any government which proposes either explicity or implicity, as this Governmnt does on both scores, that the most needy in the community must be neglected and their deprivation accentuated whilst it concentrates in a narrowminded and ill-informed way on a particular aspect of economic management is not worth the great honour of being in office and administering the affairs of this country. It is not worth the confidence of the people of the community. Clearly that is the inference to be drawn from the New South Wales State election and, two weeks earlier, the Werriwa by-election. Both of those were a solid confirmation that the people of this country have no confidence in the Government of the nation, that they have no respect for the dishonour, lack of integrity and lack of credibility of the Fraser Government.

All of this and much more of the same ilk comes from the same man, Fraser, the man who made a determined bid to rob pensioners of their funeral benefits- can one imagine anybody carrying out a meaner tactic- to take back some of the established benefits of handicapped people and of war veterans and to tax paper boys. All of this ‘grand design of social welfare reform’- that is placed in inverted commas to indicate the clear sarcasm- comes from the same man, Fraser, the man who promised tax cuts at an election eight months ago and this week introduced substantial tax increases in their place. This is the same man who in 1975 promised to preserve Medibank, to adhere to wage indexation and to bring about economic recovery in three years. He is the same man who last year promised a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates by this month and falling unemployment from February on. None of those promises has been honoured. He is the same man who claimed in Sydney a fortnight ago that his Government had boosted spending for pensioner housing but who in doing so blatantly ignored the way in which aged persons’ homes housing programs have been set back by the policies of his Government.

When the Whitlam Labor Government was in office and I was Minister for Social Security we generously increased the rate of government subsidy for aged persons ‘ housing constructed by voluntary agencies from $2 for every dollar raised by the agencies to $4 for every dollar. One of the first actions of the Fraser Government was to revert to the $2 for $ 1 subsidy.

In 1976 the Fraser Government announced a three-year program of financial support for aged persons housing of $225m, but by discreetly applying restraints to the availability of funds it ensured that when the three years ended $75m was still unspent. Some generosity, some display of concern for the aged people of the community! Where among the ranks of Government members are the defenders of that sort of deprivation? He is the same man who said a fortnight ago in Sydney again that his Government had given greater emphasis to child care oblivious of the simple fact that in 1975-76 in our last Budget we allocated $64m for this purpose. In this year’s Budget the allocation is $65. 1 m. This means very simply that in real terms- that is allowing for the erosion of inflation- there is effectively a $ 12.1m or a 21.7 per cent reduction in the allocation of finance for this area.

So we come to the conclusion that Prime Minister Fraser ‘s word is his bond. That is a bit like having Richard Nixon as your personal adviser, or even worse having the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) use the same skills he applied in writing prospectuses for Patrick and Partners to write the Prime Minister’s policy speeches. Perhaps the honourable member for Macarthur did just that. If so, that explains all but excuses nothing.

This Bill turns the clock back- a long way back- on social welfare reform in Australia. Let us look at some of the effects of this Bill. It partly dismantles pension indexation at a cost of $60m to pensioners. It delays cost of living adjustments to pensions by 16 months. This is quite contrary to the promises of the Prime Minister, who in his 1977 campaign speech said:

We have taken politics out of pension increases by Unking them automatically with the consumer price index.

Echoing him faithfully, his Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in December of last year said:

I have had lots of people say to me: ‘You have given us dignity because you don’t argue about our rises every six months’.

Eight months later those statements become half-true. How soon before they become the full lie?

The Prime Minister says that he is justified in reducing the indexation adjustment arrangements from twice yearly adjustments to once yearly adjustments because inflation is down. It is down to a little below 8 per cent, which is still high by historic standards. In 1971 and again in 1972 the McMahon Government introduced twice-yearly adjustments to pensions. At that time inflation was less than 5 per cent. Clearly the record of the McMahon Government explodes the falseness of his alibi for ‘ fleecing ‘pensioners. Let us be clear about another aspect of pension indexation. This Government, as distinct from the Whitlam Labor Government, is adjusting pensions according to its indexation arrangements in response to movements in the consumer price index not in response to movements in average weekly earnings, for which we were responsible. The Labor Government had fulfilled a promise when it went out of government in 1975. We promised in 1972 that if elected we would strive to establish the standard rate of pension, then at about 19 per cent of average weekly earnings, at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings within the normal term- that is, the three-year term of Parliament. We achieved exactly that. It is a simple calculation to establish that if there had been in the preceding decade regular adjustments of pensions according to average weekly earning movements and at the commencement of that period the standard rate of pension had been 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and accordingly still 25 per cent at the end of that period, the rate of pension would have been considerably higher than if the pension over the same period had been adjusted according only to movements in the consumer price index. In that 10-year period average weekly earnings increased by 173 per cent but the consumer price index increase was only 75.7 per cent. In monetary terms that means simply that instead of being $38.75, as the pension was when we left office, it would have been only $14.20. Over the long haul pensioners will be far worse off under the Fraser indexation program than under what we were proposing.

Let me continue with some of the defects of the Bill. It opens the back door for the reintroduction of the means test. In his 1975 policy speech the Prime Minister said:

We stand by our commitment to abolish the means test on pensions.

But he did not tell us that he was going to knock it over as he stood beside that commitment. This Bill neglects the needs of dependent children of pensioners for the third Budget in a row. In November 1975 we increased the allowance for dependent children of pensioners to $7.50 a week. In our three-year period of office that payment was regularly adjusted. That was in clear contrast to what had gone before, when for years there had been scarcely any adjustments and most often none at all. The allowance is still $7.50 a week today. If the payment had been indexed according to movements in the consumer price index it would be $9.70 a week or $2.20 more a week than it actually is. So much for the sense of justice and moral obligation discharged by the Fraser Government.

This Bill denies family allowances to students in receipt of student allowances such as allowances made under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme but it leaves the wealthy alone. Let me illustrate that point. If a member of this Parliament decides he wants to provide, say, $3,000 a year for one of his children who is attending university or a college of advanced education, the family allowance for that child will still be intact. In a relative sense that payment will represent no great sacrifice as against the sort of sacrifice of providing just a modest level of support for a student child of a person on a modest to lower middle income. Yet we find that because of the tight means testing arrangements and because of the changes to the arrangements for the payment of family allowances people in receipt of TEAS allowances- that is, very simply stated, people among the least well off in the community- will find that they will be deprived of the family allowance. These people have a far greater need for that payment than any person in this House. It becomes no person in this House to support such an iniquitous proposal.

Not only that, but in fact there has been a persistent erosion of the living standards of people dependent on TEAS allowances and the situation will be worsened by this decision. Two dependent members of a family, where those two dependent members are drawing on TEAS allowances, will as a result of this change and because of the failure to adjust TEAS allowances adequately to offset cost of living changes in the last few years will be $10 a week worse off. That is the impact in this area of this Bill.

Again, this Bill totally ignores family allowances. In real terms a family is worse off now as against 1975 by between $2.96 in the case of one dependent child and $7.86 in the case of three dependent children if one makes an allowance for the child endowment and tax rebate which Labor introduced in late 1975 and which were effective from the beginning of 1976, updated according to cost of living movements and measured against the family allowances paid at the present time. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which displays that exact point.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HAYDEN:

-This Bill attacks the unemployed. It strives to falsify unemployment benefit costs to the Budget. It seeks to rig Budget figures. So once again we get the concept of rubbery Budget costing- the concept that was enunciated first of all by the former Treasurer after the Budget last year. At least he was honest enough to put that much distance between himself and the Prime Minister, who had demanded that rigging of the Budget. This brings me to a humorous little conundrum that floats around today in the precincts of this House. Question: What is the cost of rubbery Budget figuring? Answer: Keeping Phil Lynch as the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

This Bill is an assault against the family. The maternity allowance is gone. The Budget is consistent with the erosion of the position of the family overall as a result of various initiatives taken in this Budget. The substantial increases in personal tax which have been introduced in this Budget are most damaging in their effect against families- against families on middle and modest incomes. Again, it is families who will suffer most of all because the housing mortgage subsidy is withdrawn. It is families who suffer because the dependent children of pensioners are receiving no increase in their dependant allowances. It is families who will suffer because the students receiving allowances under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme will no longer receive the family allowance. It is families who suffer overall because there has been no adjustment to offset inflation in the last three Budgets, including the present Budget, which have been introduced at the hands of the present Government. This Government, by its record, is against families. Everything that it has done in the welfare field, including the effects of the taxation adjustments, erodes the position of the family, and especially the position of the middle and the modest income families. Families are paying for the comfort of the privileged under Fraser Government administration.

The most depressing aspect of all of this is the means by which it is achieved. The total revenue on an annual basis which is saved by these various measures would fall much short of $200m and in the current fiscal year it will fall well short of $ 100m. I repeat that the people who are being deprived, denied and disadvantaged by these measures are amongst the most needy, the most dependent and the most vulnerable in our community. It ill behoves one of the wealthiest men in this Parliament to be responsible for the imposition of such discrimination and disadvantage. I repeat that the miserableness of these measures which in a full year will raise much less than $200m and much less than $100m in the course of this fiscal year pales into insignificance against what is available to be raised in the community if the Government raised revenue according to a sense of proper social equity. For instance, the Government could introduce an excess profits tax- that is, a resource rental tax- on mineral development companies in this country. I am not talking about mineral development companies which are battling to get on their feet and which are set back and disadvantaged by the adversity of world trade at the present time. I am talking about the really wealthy and prosperous mineral development companies in this country of which there are several at the present time. If that sort of tax were introduced, the Government could raise $150m in a full year. There would be no need to deny the pensioners of their twice-yearly indexation adjustment of their pensions. If the windfall addition to the profits of crude oil producers derived directly by the adjustment in crude oil pricing imposed by the Government were to be eliminated by redistributing through revenue means back into the community, there would be another $340m available to the Government. In that way, family allowances could have been adjusted in some respect at least.

If a capital gains tax were introduced for capital gains in excess of $200,000, another $300m would be available to the Government. If personal tax rates for the highest 2 per cent of income earners were adjusted on a fairer basis, another $200m would be available. If the investment allowance were scrapped, another $400m would be available. If family trusts which are used as tax avoidance measures- family trusts are so beloved by so many members on the Government side of the chamber for that reason- were abolished another $100m of revenue would be available. In all, the Government could have available $ 1,490m.

Nearly $ 1,500m would be available in the form of additional revenue to the Government if it proceeded to raise revenue according to a scale of social and economic justice and according to a system of progressive levies. If that were done, there would be no need for such mean and penny-pinching discrimination to be imposed upon the more needy and the more deprived people in the community- the most trusting people in the community.

It may seem that honourable members on this side of the House have something of a preoccupation about capital gains taxes. I recall that when I first mentioned the matter in this House in the course of this session, although it was certainly not the first time I have mentioned it in the House by far, honourable members on the Government side, including the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), were muttering that the Opposition was seeking to discourage initiative and resourcefulness among enterprising sections of the community. That is nonsense! Let me quote from one of many analyses available on the distribution of wealth in Australia. This document is entitled ‘Who’s Got What in Australia: The Distribution of Wealth’, and has been compiled by Mr Phil Raskall. He states:

  1. . 1 per cent of the adult population owns 22 per cent of personal wealth; the ‘top ‘ 5 per cent, 46 per cent; and the ‘top’ 10 per cent, almost 60 per cent of the wealth of Australians. Half of all Australians own less than 8 per cent of Australian wealth. The top 5 per cent own more than the bottom 90 per cent put together.

Mr Raskall goes on to state in his report:

The results disclose that the top 2,000 people own as much wealth as the bottom 2,225,000. The wealthiest 10 per cent have 220 times the wealth of the poorest 10 per cent.

Why does this Government therefore resort to taxing and disadvantaging so many people who are amongst the poorest 10 per cent, as it is obviously doing in this Bill before the House, when there are such generous opportunities available to raise revenue among the top 10 per cent of people and other people in that high income area without discomforting them or disadvantaging them in any way?

It may also seem that we have something of an obsession in respect of family trusts where they are used not for legitimate purposes but as tax avoidance measures. I pointed out in the House a little while ago in the course of this session that it is possible for a man who is supporting a wife and two children and who earns $33,000 a year from sources other than wages and salaries effectively to avoid $4,950 of his tax liability by exploiting one of his tax avoidance devices- a family trust. With the goodwill of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) who is at the table, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a brief outline of how this is achieved.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr HAYDEN:

– The point I am making is that this is an inequitable Government, quite apart from being an obviously dishonest one. Its promises are made to be broken, and to be broken promptly. That is bad enough. But it is the rampant injustice of what it is doing in this area which is totally intolerable. There can be no sense of compassion, no display of caring, no evidence of concern in the ranks of a government which is prepared to preserve intact all of the advantages which I have outlined for privileged groups in the community, which are wealthy, and which are best able to afford a little more sacrifice, and to do that at the expense of people least able to bear additional disadvantage.

I have to observe that on the basis of the evidence available, the Fraser social welfare policy is a policy of a mean tightwad. But I must confess that it cannot be said the Prime Minister is a mean tightwad. I have seen the expense account from his last trip overseas. The last thing I could ever say after an examination of the expense account is that he is a mean tightwad. But he preaches austerity to pensioners, the unemployed and their dependent children and to students from poor homes while concurrently searching for ways to improve his own comfort. So he spends $250,000 on renovations to a rather comfortable Lodge for his own accommodation. I presume that the Lodge is being enlarged to accommodate the wit and wisdom of the Cabinet. In such circumstances I would have thought that it required only a marginal addition, if any at all. The Prime Minister indulges in overseas trips on a scale and with a display of extravagance that have not been witnessed before.

Rather than go through all of these trips, I seek leave through the generosity of the Minister for Health who is at the table to have the list incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Hunt:

– It is a list of what?

Mr HAYDEN:

-Things that the Prime Minister has done to indulge himself. The Minister has heard what I have said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Is leave granted?

Government members- No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr Hunt:

– I do not think that anybody would take much notice of it. Leave is granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Minister has indicated that leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1753

FRASER

$250,000 renovations to the lodge. 12 overseas trips as PM at a total cost in excess of $2m . . . includes $68,000 in six days in New York for himself and entourage of 22 (including Mrs) . . . $600 a night hotel suite . . . $5,000 in telephone calls.

Modifications in 1976 to Mystere VIP jets so they could fly PM into Hamilton airport.

Proposed $20m purchase of Two 727 jets for the PM’s travel overseas.

VIP flight in July 1 977 to take Mrs Fraser and daughter to Opera in Sydney at a cost of $ 1 , 500.

Mrs Fraser’s personal florist flown from Melbourne to Canberra to arrange flowers for Queen’s visit at a cost of $1,000 in March 1977.

Lodge crockery bought from English firm at cost of $9,000 in September 1976. $16,000 custom-built official car for PM’s exclusive use when he is in Melbourne (August 1977). $2m spent on upgrading television transmission facilities in Western Victoria, including PM’s electorate.

February tax cuts gave PM on his salary of $1,600 a week an increase of $70 a week. He keeps 60 per cent of this tax cut even though 5 5 per cent of all taxpayers- between $ 1 1 4 and $238 a week- lost all the benefit in this year’s Budget tax increase.

Commonwealth driver used to drive musicians instruments from Canberra to Adelaide in February 1978.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Finally, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard- the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) agreed to this when he was in the House- an outline of the initiatives of the Fraser Government in the area of social security.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1754

QUESTION

FRASER’S CUTS IN SOCIAL SECURITY

  1. Aged persons accommodation program was cut from $71m in 1975-76 to $45m in 1976-77. The $45m was to be the first year of a three-year program of $225m. The threeyear program is now a $150m program, leaving it $75m short. The subsidy was halved from $4 to $1 to $2 to $1 in August 1976.
  2. States Grants (Home Care) program froze the subsidy on welfare officers for two years. This year they are paying the subsidy on extra welfare officers put on by local government, but cut the subsidy from $2 to $1 to $1 to $1. States and local government will not be able to match the Commonwealth grant in many cases.
  3. Child care budget has been consistently reduced, mainly in the area of grants to the States for pre-school services. Salary subsidies which in 1975 paid 75 per cent of a pre-school teacher ‘s salary now pay on average about 40 per cent.
  4. Australian Assistance Plan was abolished on 31.5.76 without warning and in spite of promise to await evaluation. Though Senator Guilfoyle urged the States to take it up, the Commonwealth has not done so in its own Territories.
  5. Money for welfare rights officers has remained at 1975-76 level. No new officers have been appointed, and shoestring organisations are increasingly subsidising this Commonwealth initiative.
  6. Community Information Centres funding remains at the 1 975-76 level with no new centres established.
  7. Social Welfare Commission abolished in 1976, with promise that its work would be taken over by the Social Welfare Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. Two years later it is just beginning operations, and no welfare research has been done.
  8. Social Welfare Planning Units within State Welfare departments, previously financed by Social Security, were dropped completely in 1976.
  9. Homeless Persons Assistance Program, introduced in 1975, with expected expenditure of $20m, has spent only $4 million in three years, and no further applicants are being approved.
  10. Grants to ACOSS, ACROD and Australian Council on the Ageing have not increased for three years.
    1. 28 new legal aid offices were deferred on 15.1.76, with income tests severely tightened so that many pensioners are not eligible for legal aid.
  12. Taxation of spouse and children’s allowances for those on unemployment, sickness and special benefit introduced in 1976 budget, along with taxation of supplementary benefit for sickness beneficiaries. No other pension or beneficiary category has these allowances taxed.
  13. Supplementary and dependent childrens’ allowances have not been increased since May 1975.
  14. Unemployment benefits for single under- 18 year olds has not been increased since May 1975.
  15. Special benefit for prisoners on remand was withdrawn in February 1978. Married prisoners can claim if they cannot get State welfare.
  16. Unemployment benefit has been made harder to obtain under the following harsh guidelines-

Benefit not given to claimants failing the work test on appearance or demeanor grounds:

Single persons over 18 obliged to move from home if work available elsewhere;

Benefit not available for school leavers for six weeks after completion of studies;

Skilled persons forced to accept unskilled work;

Income statements to be delivered personally;

Persons voluntarily leaving a job must wait six weeks for benefit;

Identification no longer establishable by bankbook, or driving licence; must have birth certificate, insurance policy, rates notice etc;

CES work test failure results in cancellation of benefit whatever the personal or family situation;

Post Office address no longer acceptable, and benefit terminated if such address given:

Payment of benefit made in arrears from 1.1 1.77, meaning an average wait of a month without payment of any kind;

Payment not made to persons laid off during ChristmasJanuary work shutdown, even when they have no holiday pay;

The Director-General and State Directors are knocking back six times the number of recommendations from Social Security Appeals Tribunals in favour of claimants than a year ago.

  1. The Government transferred responsibility for migrant welfare from Social Security against the wishes of the migrant communities to Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
  2. Maternity allowances which were introduced in 1912 have been abolished- a mere .1 per cent of social security spending.
    1. Family allowances, which replaced the tax rebate for dependent children, have dropped in value by 17 per cent because they were not indexed for inflation.
  4. The Government unsuccessfully tried to abolish funeral benefits in 1976, but were prevented by some of their own Senators.

They have been forced to abandon proposals to means test family allowances, and to tax invalid pensions, sheltered employment, rehabilitation allowances and so on.

Mr HAYDEN:

-On the basis of what I have outlined it is quite clear that the Opposition cannot support this Bill. We oppose it. We intend to vote against it at the second reading stage. In doing so we will not deprive any pensioner of pension increases. We intend to fight this measure at the Committee stage also.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The time of the Leader of the Opposition has expired.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-The speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) is both inaccurate and hypocritical.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! A quorum is required. Ring the bells.

The bells being rung-

Mr NEIL:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You called me but I did not have a chance to speak.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for St George knows that he was called and that he had started speaking before I heard from the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. I ask him to show some respect for the Chair. (Quorum formed).

Mr NEIL:

– As I said, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition is both inaccurate and hypocritical. It is typical of members of the Australian Labor Party to seek to disrupt debate in this House by taking spurious points of order, as one just did, because they do not want to hear proper debate on the matter. The Opposition knows full well when it claims that this Bill is an attack on welfare that all it has to do is to look at the figures in the Budget Speech to see that this year’s allocation for social security is a record amount of more than $7,000m, an increase of 6.8 per cent. There can be absolutely no claim on the part of the Opposition that this is a measure which in any way reduces social welfare in general. The second reason why the Opposition’s claims are hypocritical is that it knows full well that the main way in which a government can assist underprivileged persons is to continue to reduce inflation, and that is what this Government is doing. In the three years between 1972 and 1975 inflation increased enormously in this country. The report of the Henderson Committee of Inquiry into Poverty stated quite clearly that the worst effect upon poor and underprivileged persons had come from inflation and that the major cause of their difficulties had come from inflation. It is perfectly clear that if inflation returned to a rapid rate it would produce economic disruption once again. It would erode the purchasing power of every dollar that is given to pensioners. It would squeeze the ability of companies to produce in the national interest. It would lead to higher interest rates, more and more economic chaos and a deep recession. How can that in any way assist the pensioners in this country? It cannot.

The recipe which the Leader of the Opposition has just outlined is to go back behind the times, to introduce his program by stealth and to introduce all types of capital gains taxes, which are even being rejected now in America, and the socalled windfall taxes- the socialist program all over again. The Opposition would remove the investment allowance. It had three years in government to do something about family trusts but it did nothing about them. It has said that people must get used to paying more tax. That is its policy, as announced by its shadow Treasurer. The Opposition would reintroduce its entire socialist program, which could lead only to more inflation, more economic disruption and a squeezing of the purchasing power of every dollar that is given to every pensioner in this country. It would lead to the ruin of the country and to the destruction of the living standards of Australian pensioners. We on this side of the House will not have a bar of what the Opposition is seeking to do.

Let me reiterate what this Government has done for persons covered by the social welfare budget. Over the past few years there has been a tremendous increase in the benefits and assistance provided by the Government. This is in stark contrast with what the Opposition did in government, particularly in its last two years in government. The Leader of the Opposition talked about welfare housing. I well remember and I should imagine that honourable members remember that in about October 1975 the Labor Government froze all outlays for welfare housing. Projects that were about to start, projects with a week to go before settlement or before commencement of building, were stopped. That happened all round Australia. Companies were thrown into disarray. Voluntary agencies had to stop their programs. Many people were forced to leave their homes and had no welfare housing to go to thereafter. That happened when the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer.

This Government made arrangements to overcome those problems. The other thing the Labor Government did in its last few months in office was to introduce the vicious Budget known as the Hayden Budget which had a tremendous effect upon aged persons, particularly those superannuants who had a little extra income. All honourabale members will remember that they had an extremely low threshhold of taxation.

Following the report of the Asprey Committee the Labor Government was convinced for some reason or other that low income earners were not paying enough tax. So it increased the tax rates at the lower end of the scale. This particularly hurt aged persons who had a little more income, especially superannuants. The worst feature of it all was that once they got above the threshhold they paid tax on the entire amount of their income. In 1977 this Government brought in a revision of the tax system designed specifically to assist elderly persons and over a quarter of a million pensioners were released from the vicious burden that had been imposed on them in the 1975 Budget. Furthermore, this Government introduced a scheme whereby tax was paid only after -

Dr Everingham:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. I think it is important that these untruths be heard -

The bells being rung-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)Order! There is no necessity to do other than draw my attention to the state of the House. Ring the bells.

Mr Hodgman:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can it be recorded in Hansard that there were only three Labor members present in the House when the quorum was called.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance to the point of order. Members should not take frivolous points of order. (Quorum formed).

Mr NEIL:

– The basic and incontrovertible fact is that in the Budget of 1977 this Government introduced a system whereby tax is not payable up to an indexed amount of $3,750 for a full financial year. Tax is payable thereafter, but only on the excess. That is where the vast number of persons in this country earning below that figure benefited. Those earning a small amount above that figure also benefited because each individual pension is below the threshhold. Tax is payable only over and above the threshhold. That is the vital difference between what this Government did and what the previous Government did. There are a number of matters in this Bill with which I do not agree. I agree with the general principles of the Government, with the attack upon inflation and with the Budget generally and I agree that it is necessary to face the problems of current cost outlays. This is one of the most important problems we face today in order to get the deficit under control and in order to run the economy soundly.

There are aspects in the Bill which I do not support, and I do not propose to support them tonight. One of those aspects is the fact that indexation of pensions will occur annually and the other is the fact that pension increases for persons over 70 years of age will be means tested. I am prepared to agree that these measures have been seen by the public as being mean measures. I am prepared to agree that the Government must look carefully at the types of measures which, although involving only a relatively small amount of money, can do damage to the Government’s credibility. They do not affect the basic thrust of the Budget. They do not affect the validity of the Government’s economic policy. However, I accept also that they have resulted in electoral damage to the Government. I accept that a pan of the vote in the recent New South Wales State election was attributable to Federal matters, but it was only a relatively small proportion of the vote. The State election was clearly fought on State issues. Nonetheless, this Government must be wary of measures which involve the saving of relatively small amounts of expenditure for the loss of a great deal of support from the community.

I want to canvass those two matters. The matter of means testing pension increases for persons over 70 years of age is one that causes concern, but I believe that it is one which is capable of being solved. Before the 1975 election the Government campaigned on the basis of the removal of the means test for persons over 65 years of age. Members of Parliament have to face the tremendous dilemma of choosing between committing themselves to statements that have been made and the matter of directing welfare to areas of need. We must seek as much as possible to direct welfare to areas of need. If it is directed indiscriminately we will find that the public purse simply cannot afford the outlay. If persons who are not entitled to welfare and who can well look after themselves are given assistance from the public purse we will find that the whole economic structure will be in peril. However, in respect of this matter, it seems to me that a solution has to be found. I do not think necessarily that the solution is to be found simplistically by saying that the Government’s measure is to be condemned entirely. I would prefer the Government to find a policy which overcomes the double effect of both means testing and what I would call the taxation effect.

The original decision by the Labor Party to tax pensions in the Crean Budget in about 1973 was taken on the basis that it would then remove the means test. Of course, the means test was not completely removed; it was removed only in relation to those persons over 70 years of age. Since that time persons over 65 years of age, and to some extent now persons over 70 years of age who are subject to means testing of pension increases, have found that a significant proportion of the extra dollar to which they would otherwise be entitled in fact has been eroded by a combination of means testing and tax provisions. It seems to me that the Government should be seeking to blend together these two proposals. It is not sufficient to say that the two proposals, namely tax and means testing, can be run completely separately because the effect on the individual is very serious. What we should be doing is implementing a policy which will enable us to combine the two proposals so that we provide justice for all and ensure that people are not subject to the double jeopardy of taxation and means testing. Until that time comes- and I hope it will come soon- in the vacuum, while we are waiting for such a policy, I consider that the imposition of a means test for persons over 70 years in respect of their pension increases is a retrograde step.

I am also concerned about the way in which this measure is being implemented. Many elderly people have received forms from the Department of Social Security in the past few weeks and they are causing confusion and concern to them. Those people over 70 years and up to 80 years seem to be able to handle the situation fairly well. But, many of the persons who are over 80 years become quite alarmed, indeed terrified, when they receive forms from the Department inquiring into their income situation and asking them all sorts of questions which they had thought they would not have to answer once they reached that stage in life. If a pensioner who is asked what is his weekly income has a bit of money in the savings bank or some other type of interest, then, of course, it is very difficult for him to fill in the forms and to seek proper advice. I hope that the Government will at least make sure that every facility is given to these elderly persons to assist them to understand what is occurring. That would be the humanitarian thing to do because a great deal of worry and distress has been caused to elderly persons.

The second matter relates to the fact that pension increases will occur only once a year. This is a proposal that I do not support, and I do not intend to support it tonight. Whether the Bill is taken as a whole or whether that clause is dealt with separately in Committee, I will not vote with the Labor Party, having been elected as a Liberal member of the Parliament, but I will leave the chamber and reduce, at least by one, the numbers on this side of the chamber who will support this clause, or Bill, as the case may be. My reason for following that course is this: In 1975 the Liberal-Country Party coalition campaigned on the basis of automatic and instantaneous indexation of pensions. That was clearly understood by all concerned to be referable to a three-monthly period because that was the usual period between indexation increases at that time. The words ‘automatic’ and ‘instantaneous’ could have left no misimpression in the minds of the community. When the Government came to office it was faced with an extremely serious position, and it was decided that, in view of the situation, six-monthly increases would be appropriate. There were arguments put forward, because of the drastic situation that we had taken over from the Labor Party, that made that decision tolerable. However, the Government now proposes to move to 12-monthly increases. This is unsatisfactory. In my opinion, the proper solution is for the increases in pensions to be of the same frequency as are the national wage determinations. That would be reasonable and fair. As the national wage determinations are now to occur every six months, having moved up from occurring every three months, obviously it follows that I take the view that pension increases should be every six months. If that change were to occur, that would also be reasonable. The pensioners would then be no worse off than the person who is receiving the national wage.

Mr Humphreys:

– I draw attention to the state of the House.

The bells being rung-

Mr Katter:

– I raise a point of order. Would it not be an act of sheer hypocrisy and contempt for the pensioners if there were only two or three Opposition members sitting in this House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)There is no substance in the point of order. (Quorum formed.)

Mr NEIL:

– I simply cannot understand the mentality of Labor members who take the spurious attitude of calling for a quorum when a member of the Government is agreeing with them. I want to pay tribute to my colleagues, particularly the Government Whip and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party because in our Party we are entitled to have full and proper democratic debate. It has been proper for me to lead the debate for the Government in this case, even though I am making criticisms of the Government in these particular regards. That is something that the Labor Party does not allow because, of course, if a Labor member does not follow the Caucus line he is expelled from the party.

There are one or two other matters to which I wish to refer. I think it is long overdue that the Government solved the anomalies that arise in relation to those persons who receive an allowance under the tertiary education assistance scheme, on the one hand, and others who are entitled to the unemployment benefit. There is a disincentive for some young persons to go to a college and study when there are those who take the unemployment benefit. It is a serious anomaly that erodes the morale of young persons seeking to better themselves, and that anomaly should be rectified. The maternity benefits decision is unfortunate. Indeed I suggest that we might think in terms of allowing the family allowance at some time in the future, when finances permit, to be paid during the period when women are expecting a child so as to assist them with preliminary expenses. As far as the 100 per cent tuberculosis allowance is concerned, the Government Members Ex-servicemen’s Liaison Committee is considering the question of those persons in relation to the new health scheme. We believe a proper system can be worked out to assist those persons. In all, there are deficiencies in the Bill. These have been the subject of comment by myself and perhaps by other members. In general, the Government is expending large sums of money on welfare and it to be supported for the massive outlays that it has undertaken in very difficult economic times as part of its overall humanitarian program in assisting the underprivileged in our community.

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

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– It is appropriate that the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) spoke about hypocrisy because he certainly speaks with much expertise on the topic. I understand that I am to be followed in this debate by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who certainly would not be far behind the honourable member for St George. The honourable member for Denison is prepared to vote against the Government on the question of the Curran scheme to protect tax avoiders on the basis that it is contrary to Liberal Party policy, but we will see tonight whether he will vote against the Government’s decision to reduce the means test for pensioners and on the reduction of social security and repatriation pensions. If ever there was hypocrisy surely the honourable members for St George and Denison have illustrated it many, many times in this House. The honourable member for St George has just argued that the pensioners and the exservicemen should carry the fight against inflation. He talks about inflation and says that that is the reason for all these cuts; therefore the pensions have to be cut.

Let us look at another untruth that Liberal Party members and Country Party members keep on repeating. They talk about reduction in taxation by this Government. Let us look at page 217 of Hansard of 15 August of this year. In 1975-76 the net payment of income tax by individuals was $7,0 19m. This year it is estimated to be $10,341m, an increase of $3,322m, or nearly a 50 per cent increase in two years in which this Government has been in power. It talks a lot about reducing taxation but has not done anything about it.

Mr Bourchier:

– On a point of order, I would like the honourable member for Prospect to tell me how much that would have been had we not introduced indexation which saved -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Bendigo knows better.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– For the benefit of the honourable member for Bendigo I shall repeat the figures. The net payments of income tax by individuals in the 1975-76 Budget was $7,0 19m. This year the estimate is $ 10,341m, an increase of $3, 322m; that is from a Government which believes in reducing taxation. How much would we have got from other governments that would have been honest about it?

Mr Bourchier:

– How much would they have got if we had not introduced indexation. Can you tell the truth?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– People cannot live on what they would have paid. Having read this Government’s policy speech last year when it was announced in the House that the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs would introduce a Repatriation Act Amendment Bill, I assumed it would provide certain benefits. The only repatriation benefit that was promised in the last policy speech was that allied ex-servicemen would receive equal treatment with United Kingdom ex-servicemen, but it has not happened. What has happened instead is another series of broken promises so far as this Government is concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) probably does not remember because he remembers only things that are convenient for him. What is happening in this particular piece of legislation is the abolition of six-monthly automatic adjustments of repatriation pensions in accordance with movements in the consumer price index.

How will the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Burns) vote on that issue? How will the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for St George vote on that particular issue? They talk big but we will see how they vote on this particular piece of legislation. The Government has reintroduced a means test, an income test for pensions, for example, for those over the age of 70 on the service pension. This particular piece of legislation removes the sustenance allowance and abolishes acceptance of pulmonary tuberculosis as being war caused. There were five more lies, five more broken promises in that particular section of the policy speech where the ex-servicemen were promised that their conditions would remain at least the same and would in fact be improved. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister’s memory is always conveniently faulty. He has forgotten his promises just as he has forgotten when the former Minister for Administrative Services gave him certain information about the rort that the Government went for last year in Queensland.

Mr Yates:

– What has that to do with the Budget?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– It relates to the Budget because the Prime Minister makes certain promises, makes certain statements. The Prime Minister expects certain credibility but he is lying. He is lying continuously.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr KLUGMAN:

– The Prime Minister is telling deliberate untruths. I withdraw the word ‘lies’ and the House can judge for itself as to what the Prime Minister said and what the net results of the Prime Minister’s statements were.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Prospect to withdraw the allegations entirely.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I withdraw that it was a he and ask the House to judge how the performance of this Government has measured up to its promises, to the particular and specific promises that it made and broke. Let us look at the social security position as far as this particular amending piece of legislation is concerned. What is the Government doing in this particular piece of legislation? It is removing indexation of pensioners and benefits from a six-monthly to a yearly basis. Let us see what was said by the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman), who was then in charge of the legislation, when he introduced it back in 1 976. He said:

The Government has given a commitment to protect social security pensions from erosion by inflation through automatically adjusting pension levels each six months according to the movements in the Consumer Price Index.

The honourable member for St George said:

We are keeping meticulously to the promise to adjust the benefit every six months.

The Government said in its policy speech that it would not interfere with the abolition of the means test for those over 70. What has it done? It has reintroduced the means test for those over 70, not only ex-servicemen but also other people over 70. It has broken that particular promise and it will be interesting to see the administrative cost of checking on the means test for those over the age of 70 and finding out just how much the net saving is to the Government. The Government talks a lot about the family. Just before election time it came out and found royal commission reports, et cetera, which allegedly were supported by the Labor Party and which may have had some adverse effect on the family. But this particular Government has abolished the maternity allowance just when it changes medical insurance schemes and reintroduces medical costs as far as confinements are concerned. For the first time for approximately four or five years there is an actual medical cost involved for confinements. This is the exact time when this Government decides to abolish the maternity allowance which is supposed to cover that particular cost. As far as the family is concerned, by not indexing family allowances, which replaced indexed taxation deductions, the Government is reducing the value of those family allowances. Certainly it is reducing them by comparison with the savings that would have applied to all taxpayers. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which I showed earlier to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt).

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Dr KLUGMAN:

-The table shows quite clearly that every taxpaying family in this country will lose a significant amount of money because of the Government’s failure to index family allowances. If we had continued with the Labor Party scheme, the so-called Hayden scheme, under which a tax rebate of $200- not a deduction from taxable income but an actual rebate- was introduced in the 1975-76 Budget, to be indexed in line with other tax rebates, that rebate would now be $269 per child. That is $5.16 per week per child for a taxpaying family. Those figures are obtained by indexing the amount by 13 per cent for 1976-77, by 10.9 per cent for 1977-78, and by only 7.6 per cent for 1978-79. Those are the exact figures that this Government has used in relation to allowances.

What would have been the net result of that? Under our scheme, a family with one child would have received a tax rebate of $5. 1 6 a week plus child endowment of 50c, making a total payment of $5.66 a week. All that that family receives now is $3.50 a week. There is a loss to the family of $2.16 a week. A family with two children would have been entitled to a tax rebate of $10.32 a week, with child endowment of $1 for the second child and 50c for the first child, making a total of $11.82 a week. That family now receives $3.50 for the first child and $5 for the second child, making a total of $8.50 a week. There is a loss to the family of $3.32 a week. Similarly, for a family with three children there is a loss of $4.48, for a family with four children a loss of $5.89, for a family with five children a loss of $6.55, and for a family with six children a loss of $7.46 a week. That represents a net loss to every taxpaying family in this country and is in addition to the extra taxation which is being levied. As I indicated earlier, there has been an increase of nearly 50 per cent in individual payasyouearn taxation since this Government came to power. What is the Government doing about family allowances in this Budget? It is not indexing family allowances; it is abolishing family allowances for those children in receipt of allowances under prescribed educational schemes. Let me quote from the Bill before the House. On page 8 of the Social Services Amendment Bill the following prescribed educational schemes are set out:

  1. the scheme known as the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme;
  2. the scheme known as the Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme;
  3. the scheme known as the Pre-School Teacher Education Assistance Scheme;
  4. the scheme known as the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme;
  5. the scheme known as the Commonwealth Teaching Service Scholarship Scheme;
  6. the scheme known as the Post-Graduate Awards Scheme;

The parents of those students will lose the family allowance from now on. The Government is taking away the family allowance from the parents of students who are entitled to an allowance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, and we all know that a severe means test is applied under that Scheme. In other words, the Government is taking away the family allowance from those parents whose children qualify to receive a benefit under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and other schemes, yet it is not removing the family allowance from those people who earn much more. If a parent earns a very large amount of money, earns too much for his student child to receive the TEAS allowance, and is able to send his child to university or to some other tertiary institution, there is no attempt to remove the family allowance. However, the family allowance payable to those parents who qualify under the means test will actually be removed.

An attack is being made on migrants’ children living abroad and it is very difficult to judge the significance of this. The Opposition has asked for this legislation and the repatriation legislation to be referred to one of the legislation committees which have been set up by this House. That request has been refused. I am sorry it has been refused. I usually try to argue rationally on these Bills. We try to get information from the Minister in charge of a Bill or from the Government’s advisers, but on this occasion we will not be able to get that information. Let us look at the contents of this particular legislation for which honourable members opposite will be voting. I am quite sure that honourable members opposite will not know the significance of their votes. They will not know what they are voting for. I draw attention to clause 1 6 of the Social Services Amendment Bill which will change the wording of section 83AAD of the Act. Two words in that section are to be changed and I will read both the section and the amending clause to the House. I challenge the honourable member for Denison, who has legal qualifications.

Mr Burns:

– They are pretty poor. They are only from Tasmania.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I know they are only from Tasmania. Nonetheless, honourable members opposite will be supporting this legislation. I am not saying necessarily that I would not support it, but I would like an explanation of the reason for the changes. The present wording of the Act states:

A benefit shall not be granted to a person who is a supporting parent unless-

I emphasise the world ‘unless’ because that is being changed-

The Director General considers that it is reasonable that the supporting parent should have taken action to obtain maintenance from the person or persons who is or are the father or fathers or the mother or mothers as the case may be of the child or children in relation to whom the first mentioned person is the supporting parent and that that person has taken such action to obtain such maintenance as the Director General considers reasonable.

That is the wording of the present legislation, and by substituting the word ‘if for the word unless’ it is being amended to read:

A benefit shall not be granted to a person who is a supporting parent if the Director General considers that it is reasonable that the supporting parent should have taken action to obtain maintenance from the person or persons who is or are the fathers or fathers or the mother or mothers as the case may be of the child or children in relation to whom the first mentioned parent is the supporting parent and that person has not taken such action to obtain such maintenance as the Director General considers reasonable.

We have asked a number of lawyers to look at this and a number of Opposition members have looked at it. We cannot see the difference. We cannot see the significance of it. There may be a terribly obvious explanation, I am not denying that for a moment, but I would like to have some intelligent discussion in one of the legislation committees that we have set up, hopefully for just this purpose, in order to get that explanation and to come to a reasonable opinion without having to divide the House. It is completely pointless that we are forced to divide the House when members on both sides of the House, in some cases, do not know what they are voting for or against. We waste about 10 minutes on every division when we could have a short discussion with somebody who knows what the legislation is all about. That might resolve the problem altogether because we might agree with it.

Similarly, there is other legislation dealing with the non-payment of benefits for certain children overseas. I do not know what children are involved in that case but I fear that it is an attack on certain members of the migrant community. There is no doubt that in the Department of Social Security a strong anti-migrant bias exists. One has to look only at the attitude in Sydney as far as Australians of Greek origin are concerned in relation to social security payments. It is quite ridiculous, I would argue, that some hundreds of cases have allegedly been brought against beneficiaries who are of Greek origin and almost none against people of any other origin. Let us assume for a moment that these cases are based on fact. There must have been a concentration on a particular grouping in the community to obtain evidence against them. Surely an acrosstheboard investigation would not reveal that 1,000 plus people of Greek origin and none of any other origin were in receipt of social security benefits to which they were not entitled. I just do not believe that it would. I repeat: There is an obvious anti-migrant bias amongst the members of the Department of Social Security and, I think, amongst the members of the Commonwealth Police Force who were involved in this matter. I make that statement, but I would be very happy to withdraw it if it could be shown that I am wrong.

That bias in the Department of Social Security is all the more reason for our getting some explanation as to why the changes have been introduced. Similarly, we do not know exactly what the changes to the Repatriation Act will mean. We do not know how many people will be involved and just what kinds of tests will be imposed for people who are presently receiving benefits for pulmonary tuberculosis. Just how strict will the tests be to relate pulmonary tuberculosis to service? We all know that certain people are much more susceptible to pulmonary tuberculosis than others. All kinds of factors are involved in a frank case of pulmonary tuberculosis. All of us have been exposed to tubercle bacillus at some stage, but very few of us become sufferers of pulmonary tuberculosis. How will the Department of Veterans’ Affairs decide what was due to war service?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

–

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-The contribution of the Opposition to what I believe is an important debate can be described only as pitiful and disgraceful. The shabby and somewhat rambling diatribe by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) was, to say the least, disappointing for a man who is reputed to be one of the most intelligent members of the Parliament. In my respectful submission, his performance tonight was nothing short of disgraceful. (Quorum formed). When in due course the pensioners of Australia read Hansard they will be interested to learn that during the debate on these social welfare Bills tonight three quorums were called by the Labor Party. On the first occasion three Labor Party members were present, on the second occasion three were present and on the third and last occasion four were present. That means that the average attendance of the Labor Party in this chamber during the forming of a quorum over the last hour has been three and a half. That is indeed flattering.

Mr Haslem:

– Which one is the half?

Mr HODGMAN:

-We do not need to look too hard to see which one is the half. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would not have believed that this important debate dealt with 27.8 per cent of the total Budget outlays. We are talking about an appropriation of $8,0 15m, an increase of $524m on the actual expenditure last year for social security and social welfare, which amounted to $7,490m. Of that total appropriation of $8,0 15m some $6, 602m is to be expended on pensions and benefits payable under the Social Services Act. That represents an increase of $399m over that paid in 1977-78. So we see that the Labor Party is the great poser. It believes that it can con the pensioners every election time into believing that it is genuinely concerned for them. Members of the Labor Party have been revealed tonight as posers and hypocrites, prepared once again to play politics with the pensioners of Australia in a most shabby and disgraceful manner.

The honourable member for Prospect, having slunk out of the chamber at the conclusion of his remarks, has now come back into the chamber. He concluded his remarks by accusing the entire Department of Social Security of being antimigrant. He also tossed in the Commonwealth Police Force for good measure. That would be one of the most irresponsible accusations I have ever heard in my life. I do not have a great reputation for defending public servants or Ministers, but I do say on this occasion that the honourable member did little credit to himself, did little credit to the people in this chamber and did little credit to those who are going to read this debate by his outrageous allegation. These officers are far from being anti-migrant. I place on record my appreciation of the officers of the Department of Social Security in Tasmania, from the Director down. I place on record my appreciation of the present Director-General of Social Services, Mr Lanigan, for his approachability and his compassion. Really, how anybody like the larrikin member for Prospect can stand in this chamber and describe the Department of Social Security as anti-migrant and get away with it just makes one wonder. No wonder he is called Tricky Dicky.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall come back to the legislation and say in specific terms to the honourable member for Prospect that I do not take any great pleasure in responding to him when he called the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) a hypocrite. The honourable member for St George has more character and more courage than many honourable members on the other side of the House. I do not believe it is appropriate for him to be described as a hypocrite when he has the courage of his convictions to stand up and speak out on matters of conscience. The honourable member for Prospect made a big statement about whether the honourable member for St George would do this or that. Apart from Captain Sam Benson, I do not remember any member of the Labor Party standing up on a matter of conscience and saying: ‘I disagree with what the Party machine has said’. I do not recall any member of the Labor Party crossing the floor. I do not recall Labor members abstaining from voting. Of course they would not because they are prisoners of the Left, and if they move one inch out of line, off goes the head. It is tragic to see captive brains, genius brains, such as those of Dr Blewitt, a prisoner of the Left, locked into a situation where they cannot excerise their independent will and conscience.

I will not speak at great length because I believe the matters to which I want to advert are clear cut. It does not worry me one iota what the honourable member for Prospect says about me or indeed even thinks about me. The fact is that I want to put my position clearly in this Parliament, as I have done from the day I first walked into this chamber and as I will continue to do until the day I walk out of here. Unlike the honourable member for Prospect, who thinks he is immortal, I recognise that the day will come when I will walk out of here.

I want to avert to three specific matters which I believe are matters of importance. I am proud to be a member of a party in which the conscience of its members is recognised. That, I think, is one of the most valuable things about being a member of our party. Back in 1975 in what was a fairly heated campaign, if one might say so, in what was a campaign in which the Labor Party sought to generate a phoney constitutional crisis, the people of Australia were looking to real value. In particular, the pensioners of Australia were looking for some alternative to the wretched, rotten, despicable government which had decided to tax them most viciously as it had done in the Budget of 1974 and the Hayden horror Budget of 1 975. We went to the pensioners of Australia and said: ‘In order that politics may be taken out of pensions, we will grant automatic and instantaneous indexation of your pensions’. As the honourable member for St George has recalled, in 1976 we made history in this country by being the first government to legislate for automatic pension increases. It is something of which we can be very proud, and that legislation was in pursuance of the pledge given during the December 1975 Federal election campaign.

Mr Bourchier:

– It was a promise kept.

Mr HODGMAN:

– It was indeed a promise kept and, if I might say so, a promise kept is a promise which will be respected. I must say that at that time I found it difficult to accept that sixmonthly increases were ‘automatic and instantaneous’ in view of the fact that the cost of living was indexed quarterly. But nevertheless, like the honourable member for St George and many other honourable members, I went along with it. I would find it legally impossible and, as a matter of conscience, completely impossible to argue that annual indexation, as I see it, is either automatic or instantaneous. So I find myself in exactly the same position as the honourable member for St George in respect of that provision. I do not believe it is consistent either with the pledge that we made in 1975 or indeed with the comments that we made in 1977 that we had taken politics out of pensions ‘. For those reasons I wish to make it quite clear that unlike those prisoners on the other side of the House who are just little minions and pawns I am going to exercise a conscience vote on this matter, and I will not support the provision. (Quorum formed).

The numbers on the Labor Party side have increased slightly on this occasion but once again it demonstrates their absolute contempt and their absolute lack of concern for the welfare of the pensioners of Australia. And shame on those people who sit opposite. They are condemned for their political cynicism for once again playing politics with pensions and with pensioners. The extraordinary thing about the rabble on the other side of the chamber is that even when we on this side are agreeing with them they are so thick that they have to interrupt us. It is most incredible. They interrupted the honourable member for St George when he was agreeing with the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). They are so stupid, they are so incompetent and they are so insensitive to the needs of the pensioners of Australia that they will remain in opposition at least until the year 200 1 . The next matter I want to -

Mr Holding:

– Tell us how you are going to vote.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I would like to ask the honourable member when he has ever voted according to his conscience and crossed the floor. He would not have the intestinal fortitude to cross the floor. He is not going to worry me one iota. As my colleague the honourable member for St George said, after all he is a political retread- an escapee from the Victorian Parliament. I now turn to the question of means testing the over-70 year olds. I take a contrary view to that expressed by my colleague the honourable member for St George. I do not believe that the decision to means test increases for pensioners over the age of 70 years is a good decision. I believe it to be a decision which is distressing a large number of people, which will be an administrative nightmare and which intrudes into my concept of social justice. It is a provision which I find totally unacceptable. I would therefore not be prepared to cast my vote in support of that provision.

Lastly I wish to turn to a matter which has not been discussed by any other honourable member, and it is the question of maternity allowances. I believe that the question of maternity allowances is a matter of some importance. I am staggered- no, I am not really staggered that members of the Labor Party are not concerned with maternity and motherhood. They are carrying the can for the abortion racketeers in this country at the moment.

Dr Klugman:

-I raise a point of order.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I am not surprised that they are not at all concerned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)

Order!

Mr HODGMAN:

– It is very interesting that he has taken a point of order, in view of the last comment I made about abortion racketeers.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. The honourable member for Prospect wishes to raise a point of order.

Dr Klugman:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, you heard what the honourable member for Denison just said. He said that we did not speak about maternity allowances. In my speech I spoke for about three minutes on the abolition of maternity allowances, and I pointed out that for the first time mothers will now have to pay for their confinement, and this is at a time when the Government is abolishing maternity allowances.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am unsure as to whether you heard the last remark by the honourable member for Denison.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat. Does the honourable member for Burke wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes. I cannot speak for the Chair but the last remark made by the honourable member for Denison was most offensive. He accused the honourable member for Prospect of being the last of the abortion racketeers.

Mr Neil:

– He did not.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– You had better check the record tomorrow. That is what I heard him say and it is extremely offensive to any member of this House. He ought to be made to withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Denison.

Dr Klugman:

– On a point of order, if that is true- I did not hear it- it will appear in Hansard. Obviously I ask for a withdrawal. I do not know whether he said it or not. He is an idiot and that is the sort of stupid thing that he would say.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr Klugman:

– He has accused the two most sincere members of Parliament -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I did not hear the remark. If such a remark were passed I believe that it would be an unparliamentary remark and I would ask the honourable member to withdraw it.

Mr HODGMAN:

-No. I likened their attitudes to that of the professional abortion racketeers with respect to maternity and with respect to motherhood, and I stand by it because if any group in Australia is encouraging professional abortion, it is that crowd on the other side of the chamber -

Mr Holding:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr HODGMAN:

-And you in particular.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I feel that if the honourable member reconsiders the remarks he is passing he would agree that they are unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw them.

Mr HODGMAN Mr Deputy Speaker, if I refer to a specific member I believe I am being unparliamentary. But when I say that their attitudes -

Mr Holding:

– A point of order.

Mr HODGMAN:

-No, I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Holding:

– You spoke about members and you know it. So why don ‘t you do the right thing?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Denison: Did you specifically refer to an individual?

Mr HODGMAN:

-No, the whole bang lot of them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Denison.

Mr HODGMAN:

– As the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) pointed out to me -

Motion (by Mr Young) proposed:

That the honourable member for Denison be not further heard.

A division having been called and the bells

Dr Klugman:

– The honourable member for Denison is obviously drunk tonight. He is under the influence of alcohol and he should not be in this House at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect -

Dr Klugman:

– It applies to the rest of the Government members, if that is the way you want to play the game, if you want to play it across the board.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr Klugman:

– Honourable members opposite are drunks. They come into this House drunk when they are supposed to be debating a thing. You saw it earlier and you saw a number of members behave in that fashion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I would ask the honourable member for Prospect to consider all that he has said in the last few seconds.

Dr Klugman:

– Yes, and it is true.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would ask him to consider whether what he has said is in the best interests of this Parliament.

Dr Klugman:

– It is not in the best interests of this Parliament. I completely agree with you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would invite you to withdraw the comment.

Dr Klugman:

– But surely you know what happened in this House. If you cannot deal with the honourable member for Denison -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I would ask the honourable member for Prospect to withdraw the comments he has made regarding this situation.

Dr Klugman:

– Against a specific member?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Yes.

Dr Klugman:

– Against a specific member, I will withdraw, but he is one of a group of members who behaved in exactly the same way.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Question put:

That the honourable member for Denison be not further heard.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 63

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I think that most members would agree that the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) are both people of remarkable intelligence. It is unfortunate that the honourable member for Denison tonight chose to waste the time of the House by devoting himself as he did in the great bulk of his speech to trivia instead of devoting himself to sustained criticism of a Budget against which I am sure he has more profound objections than were reflected in his speech. This Social Services Amendment Bill represents an important stage in the development of this Government’s policies. It marks the point where the failure of the Government’s overall economic strategy begins seriously to affect the Government’s capacity to maintain effective programs on social services and social security.

The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), who began her Ministry back in December 1975 with considerable optimism concerning the Government’s policies, is now the victim of the prolonged economic recession which those policies have produced. In December 1975 the Minister for Social Security spoke of the fact that Australia could not be a prosperous nation with so many people out of work. However, she claimed that the resources of her Department would be directed towards solving this massive problem. She said:

The opening up of wider and unexplored employment areas will certainly ease pan of the problem . . .

The reality has been that rather than this Government opening up wider and unexplored areas for employing more people, it has been at least partially responsible for narrowing those opportunities and plunging the country more into recession. Unfortunately for the Department of Social Security the effect of this prolonged recession has been to increase enormously the responsibilities of the Department while the Government constantly seeks to restrain public expenditure across the board.

It is just nonsense for members on the Government side to claim that the increases in this year’s Budget represent any improvement in the real situation of social service beneficiaries. The Government must spend more because many more people are receiving social service benefits and many more people will continue to receive social service benefits as long as this Government pursues its present economic course. It is for this reason that the Government has introduced into this Bill a number of changes which in no sense can be described as reforms. They have to be recognised as representing a rather desperate attempt on its part to restrain spending in the social security area for no rational reason other than its desire to save revenue in oblique ways which have the less dramatic political impact. Of course, many of these changes represent the reverse of what the Government had promised in previous election speeches. Thus the Minister is drawn more deeply into the web of dishonesty and deception which is the hallmark of this Government.

One can run through the series of measures which are part and parcel of the Social Services Amendment Bill. Perhaps I could refresh the minds of honourable members by recalling those measures to which speakers on this side of the House and most of the speakers, if not all of the speakers, on the other side of the House have drawn attention. The Government had promised repeatedly that pensions and benefits would be indexed oh a biannual basis. However, clause 6 of this legislation ensures that this year’s increase in pensions and benefits will be the last increase until November 1979, thus effectively eroding the real value of the pensions and benefits which are being paid. Biannual indexation was being held up by the Government and the Minister for Social Security as evidence of the Government’s concern and, indeed, as proof of the Government’s credibility. On 28 September the Minister was asked in the other place whether there was some suggestion that the Government would change its policy on biannual indexation if the rate of inflation fell. In answer to that question the Minister said:

The policy itself and the introduction of that policy into legislation made no qualification.

Therefore no argument is produced to answer the suggestion. We cannot accuse the Government and the Minister of lying because to do so would be unparliamentary. But the reality nevertheless is that this is a Government which repeatedly says something in terms of its policy if there is a vote in it but when it comes to the crunch it does not deliver.

It is undoubtedly true that the failure of indexation will drive a larger number of people, particularly people in receipt of the unemployment benefit, into poverty. This has been established by a table which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HOWE:

– The table emphasises the desperate situation of the family where the usual income earner is unemployed. It underlines the similar plight of the single parent with child. In the first case, the unemployed household with two dependent children will by November 1979 have fallen $20 below the poverty line. In the case of the single parent with child the gap will have reached $25. Quite clearly the elimination of biannual indexation does not explain those figures alone but it does contribute to what is a desperate situation.

I believe that the principal point that should be emphasised is that people dependent on pensions are highly dependent on the marginal dollar income and what may appear on the surface to be minor if not rational cost saving devices can have a major impact on the situation of people living on or around the poverty line. This is, of course, especially the case where people are solely dependent on pension and benefit income. We must place that change within the context of some other relevant facts. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) referred to the fact that the allowance for dependent children of pensioners is not indexed and remains at $7.50 a week. It would have been $9.70 a week if indexation had been continued. Family allowances which have been introduced on a nonmeans tested basis are not being indexed. Thus the real value declines from year to year. The permissible earnings for pensioners remains at a fixed figure which means that pensioners who are able to attract additional income lose their pension once that income rises to $20 a week for single pensioner and $34 a week for married pensioners.

One can go on and refer to a number of other measures that are included in the Bill. It provides for the introduction of an income test on further pension increases for people who are 70 years of age and over which suggests that the Government is reneging on its repeated promise to eliminate the means test on old age pensions. One must underline again that whatever might be the rationality of this policy it is not what the Government went to an election on. To renege on that promise within a matter of months of an election represents dishonesty and treachery on the part of the Government when we relate the situation to that section of the population. One can go on to refer to the elimination of family allowances for students under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. One can talk about the removal of maternity allowances. That is certainly not the sort of thing one would have wanted to mention last year. One could talk about the shift from the weekly payment of benefits to the monthly payment of benefits. This represents a saving to the Government in this year of perhaps $30m which could have made a difference to many people ‘s family income.

Finally, and most significantly, we have in this legislation extremely shabby treatment of the unemployed. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, has earned a reputation for fighting vigorously to protect the interests of her Department. However, despite frequent expressions of concern, she does not have a very impressive record of fighting to protect the interests of the unemployed. We have to be reminded of the early days of her ministry. Honourable members will remember that the Minister was going to root out the cheats, the chisellers and the bludgers. So we had the tightening up of the work test guidelines, the introduction of identity checks, and the limitation of people’s classifications so that people who were skilled workers had to be prepared to take unskilled work. We had the shifts in policy so that the unemployment benefit could not be paid to school leavers and we had the example of the Karen Green case.

In this Budget we can afford another $7m for Department of Social Security staff to try to cut down the rolls by what they estimate to be something like 1 7,000 people at a reported saving of $50m. This is related to an attempt to force people who are genuinely unemployed out of a situation in which they regard themselves in a real sense as part of the work force. We know that hundreds of thousands of Australians are currently not registered for employment but, nevertheless, they are interested in being part of the work force. This Government is frightening people out of the work force. It is creating an atmosphere in which people who have rights are being denied those rights. The reality is that despite those measures in this financial year we will see in excess of $900m spent on unemployment benefits notwithstanding that thousands of people will be denied their right to receive proper unemployment benefits.

This will be the case when unemployment benefits are paid at rates which for many people will mean living well below the poverty line. Not only are people being dissuaded from receiving their right, that is unemployment benefits, but also at the same time those benefits are being paid at an abysmal and shamefully low level. Single people are receiving $36 a week. That figure has not changed since 1975. We know what that means. It means that not only can people not afford to live independently but also when they go back into their family situation they are then dependent upon their families. It is costing more money for families who are very often- indeed in the majority of cases- lower and middle income families. They are being asked to carry a burden for which the Government ought to take responsibility. We see also that the benefits paid to people will be indexed annually rather than biannually. This means that November 1979 will be the first occasion on which they will receive an increase after the increase which is provided in this Budget.

One could go on to look at the treatment of the unemployed by the Government in its social security policy. The pretensions of the Government, like those of the honourable member for Denison, have been very great. The Government has stated consistently that whatever it might do for the average man it will really look after the person who is in trouble. I resist the suggestion from any honourable member on the other side of the House that the unemployed in the overwhelming majority are in any sense bludgers or second-class citizens. In a real sense, the unemployed are the scapegoats. They are being made scapegoats by this Government for a system which is breaking down in a fundamental way. They reflect the irrationality of late monopoly capitalism, which does not place a value on people and which benefits from the existence of the reserve army of unemployed supported minimally not out of profits but predominantly out of income tax. As the Minister for Social Security has repeatedly pointed out, 60 per cent of all personal income tax goes into pensions and benefits.

That is the crux of the problem. We are increasingly building a society in which an increasingly less equitable tax system is being asked to bear a larger and larger burden which flows down from failures of the economic system. We have a government in power which is on about providing an increasing income tax while transferring larger and larger subsidies to large scale and monopoly capital. This is a government which will move inexorably towards limiting eligibility for benefits such as unemployment benefits because its focus will not be on people and their need but will be more and more on large scale capital.

This is why the alternative Budget proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) makes so much sense. It represented a strategy designed to protect the interests of working people by using the tax system to make real transfers of wealth to the lower income groups via a resources tax and capital gains taxes, the development of universal systems of health and social security, and the opening up of meaningful work opportunities for the unemployed. It is extraordinary that a Minister who began her career in the Ministry speaking about the need to fine down bureaucracy has moved to add further and further to that bureaucracy by adding thousands of additional employees and increasing the emphasis on surveillance powers while, doing little to make any contribution towards solving the fundamental problems which are giving rise to an ever-increasing social welfare bill.

This Government’s economic failures are producing an enormous social cost. That cost will grow and grow. We are producing a generation of bitter Australians who are being maintained on the perimeter of society as non-participants and as spectators. They must increasingly come to question this society and the current social system. I guess that in this there is room for optimism because we need to be thinking more radically about our society and the problems that confront it. It is simply not good enough to be encouraging millions of Australians to accept a second-class standard of living while the lucky, the tough or the powerful enjoy the security of their ruling class situation.

This Parliament is increasingly taking on the appearance of unreality as it lurches on from Budget to Budget without encouraging any real debate about the need for any fundamental changes. We are increasingly as a Parliament unrepresentative and therefore unable to sympathise with the situation of a larger and larger number of Australians. It is as if we had no empathy for the insecurity that is felt by people about the possibility of being entirely dependent on minimal benefits which are rarely established as a right. We have no sense of the sheer marginality of existence in the working class electorates of Australia where there is now virtually no freedom of choice.

We have little or no capacity to experiment with change and our sense of what represents a high standard of community facilities is abysmally low. We constantly allow ourselves the luxury of extraordinarily high standard facilites for the few whilst permitting and even encouraging the poorest quality services for the less powerful- and in education we have a classic example of that. We have a limited commitment to equality of opportunity but no sense of the fact that people cannot equally grasp opportunities. We rely in an unthinking way on the so-called private sector, despite ever-abundant evidence of its injustice, irrationality, and the lack of any effective control by workers or consumers over investment decisions. The poor, the unskilled and the working people of this country almost never influence important priority decisions, and in a real sense we no longer have any feeling for what their priorities may be.

We are the victims of myth and rumour and each day social divisions grow rather than diminish. This Parliament is an isolated, classbound institution and this Bill simply reflects that fact. We need a new approach to social security. We need simplified legislation. We need more established rights and less arbitrary discretion being practised by Directors-General or other members of the Department of Social Security. We need more independent and more representative tribunals. We need to be aiming for the reduction of inequality and not the mere elimination of poverty. We need to decentralise and make Government bureaucracy more responsible. The Government spoke about that, but what happened to the Bailey report? We need to remove all sense of distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. Perhaps more than anything else, what this legislation is about is the re-enforcement of that particular distinction, which belongs in the nineteenth century, where the Tory Party opposite belongs as well.

We need to give all Australians access to adequate welfare services, on the assumption that they contribute to people’s real income. We need to recognise that social security will continue to absorb a very high proportion of the Commonwealth Budget, but ensure that it is not paid for by working people in the main; that it is genuinely redistributive. It is this last proposition that people are coming to doubt. There may well be a tax revolt in this country. What that may be about is the inequality of the current taxation system. Let us not talk simplistically about simply reducing taxes for everyone, and at the same time ensure that the greatest benefit goes to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his class. Let us have a real look at the equity in the taxation system and see which of the parties can win an election on that issue. I have no doubt which party it will be.

Mr Armitage:

– I rise to a point of order. Prior to the introduction by the previous Labor Government, of the 11 o’clock rule, it was the convention of this Parliament that when . the House was to sit into the early hours of the morning, such as 1 o’clock, 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock- as obviously will happen tonight- supper would be provided for members at 1 1 p.m. I rise to ask whether this convention is to be observed- or yet another convention is to be broken- and whether arrangements have been made for members to be provided with supper tonight?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair is not aware that any special arrangements have been made for honourable members but I suggest that the vigour that they have been displaying tonight indicates that they could carry on without sustenance until breakfast time.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that you might not have been in the Parliament when that convention was observed; but it was certainly observed prior to 1972.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have ruled on the point of order. The honourable member for Chifley knows better than to resume discussion on the point. (Quorum formed).

Mr MCVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-To organise and manage a nation properly requires outstanding people- men and women who seek responsibility and who know challenge. This legislation is the product of the activities of such men and women. Notwithstanding a difficult economic environment we are not neglecting our senior people, our young or our handicapped. This Budget humanises and dignifies our economic system. The total outlay on social security and general welfare items is 27.8 per cent of estimated total Budget outlays, an increase from $7,490.3m last year to $8,0 14.7m this year. Incidentally, it is worth reporting that in 1973-74, under the administration of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), the total allocation was a paltry $ 1,200m. We are dealing with a huge number of people. There are 1,756,000 pensioners in Australia and 4,305,000 children are covered by the various family allowance and assistance schemes. The Government’s policy is to give help to people in the greatest need. It is a real human, Christian philosophy. I believe that it is appropriate to recall in this debate some of the utterances of the present Leader of the Opposition when he had the honour of delivering the Chifley Memorial Lecture in 1973. He said:

Social welfare and economic policy are two subjects which are too often discussed in isolation from each other even though it is common for discussions of either subject to pay lip service to the importance of the other. The result is that very often economic policy and social welfare policy are perceived as being antagonistic when in fact they are necessarily complementary. It is for governments as the ultimate makers and implementers of social and economic policy to establish a consistent and systematic set of priorities which can be superimposed on those of the various specialist interests, and quite clearly no government is in a position to satisfy all the demands of a population at a given time.

Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition when delivering the Chifley Memorial Lecture in 1973. In this legislation the Government has done all those things and has been responsible. It has been a responsibility that has been very difficult to exercise. I do not want to harrow the same ground but in 1975 the Government received an inheritance from the Treasury which in effect made us a bankrupt nation. That has been the difficult road for us to hoe ever since. I want to correct some of the utterances of the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to be

kind to him. I say merely that he flirted rather dangerously with the truth in some of the statistics he quoted. He criticised this Government for not increasing old age and social security pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly income in accordance with the plan of the Labor Government. The figures are interesting. When the Fraser-Anthony Government was returned to the treasury benches in December 1975 the average weekly income was $166.90. The standard single pensioner rate was 23.2 per cent of that amount and the combined married rate was 38.6 percent.

Mr Lloyd:

– Less than 25 per cent.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I take on board the point made by the honourable member for Murray, who said that it was considerably less than the 25 per cent which the Labor Government sought to achieve but which it never even remotely attained. Yet at present, with the average weekly wage for the June 1978 quarter being $215, which is an increase from $166.90, the percentages are 23.9 per cent, which is a significant increase from the 23.2 per cent under the Labor Government, and 39.3 per cent for a married couple, compared with the 38.6 per cent under Labor. I have a table which indicates that the Leader of the Opposition flirts dangerously with the truth and does not give the facts. The truth is that we have improved the situation with regard to social security pensioners. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · NCP

– We also want to correct some other anomalies because of the fear that has been put in the minds and hearts of pensioners by speeches that we have heard from members of the Opposition tonight. I want to make it crystal clear that every person, when he or she reaches 70 years of age, will receive the pension which is presently applicable. In effect every person, when he or she reaches 70 years of age, will receive a pension. A means test will be imposed on any increases that are granted from time to time. We are not recreant to the trust that was placed in us and we have lived up to our promises which were part and parcel of promises given in the various election campaigns. I disagree with previous speakers from the Government side and I want to place emphasis on the total umbrella, the full sphere, of government activity.

I appreciate the remarks of previous speakers, but I want to dissociate myself and my party from those remarks. In the final analysis when a government, through its sound economic policies and fiscal responsibility, creates an economic climate wherein the rate of inflation will be down to 5 per cent at the end of this financial year, it is reasonable that pension* be indexed only once a year. I stand firmly behind the Government because it is one of responsibility and one which will not sell out for cheap, short term political gain. Those policies are true and we colossal not denying a promise that we gave. We are assuring the pensioners that the prices of basic commodities like a loaf of bread and a tin of jam, on account of our financial policies, basically will be stabilised for 12 months. In that situation surely it is reasonable and responsible for a government to keep matters such as pensions and social security payments out of the political arena and for them to be indexed forward according to movements in the consumer price index during the 12 months ending on 30 June. We are not denying pensioners anything. What we are giving them is total security.

I want to talk about total security, including assistance in the area of housing. We have made it easier for people to obtain finance through various schemes and particularly through initiatives in the area of aged people’s housing. In my electorate of Darling Downs at present there is accommodation for 74S aged people in various government aged housing institutions. It is interesting to note that in the term of our Government over 500 new self-contained hostel and nursing projects, providing some 15,000 beds, have been approved under the program of accommodation for aged people for the threeyear period 1976-79. More importantly, the program will be extended to a fourth year. In 1977-78 some 609 approved premises received a personal care subsidy for 16,166 aged people who needed special attention or who were over 80 years of age. This subsidy amounted to $ 12.6m, which is an increase of $ 1.5m over the subsidy in 1976-77. Some 400 senior citizen centre projects have been funded, to a colossal value of $28.5m, between 1976 and 1979. We have rationalised the income free pension for persons aged 70 years and over. From November 1978 it will be replaced by a fixed weekly pension rate of $5 1.45 for a single person and $85.80 for a married couple. Increases will be subject to an income test. The complex means test was removed so that a person’s assets were not taken into consideration under the formula; only income was taken into account. When all these matters are taken into consideration we as a government can stand secure in the knowledge that we have looked after our aged people and those who are what we might term the handicapped and unfortunate in our society. It is all very well to mention matters out of context in regard to the Budget, but if the matters are analysed in detail they will indicate that we can be proud of them.

I wish now to talk about the problem of unemployment and the payment of unemployment benefit. I was amazed at the rather curious plurality of the logic expressed by the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe), who preceded me in the debate. All he wanted to speak about was rights. We as responsible Australian citizens have an obligation to hold a balance between our rights and responsibilities. We want to ensure that the benefits are directed to those who are genuinely unemployed. A government surely would not be entitled to be regarded as a real government if it sat idly by and allowed that sort of situation to continue. Recently 182 people in Sydney were charged with defrauding the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security of between $6m and $6.5m. There were 1,200 suspected cases of fraud. One officer in Sydney is under threat of sentence for lodging 351 forged applications involving amounts totalling $260,000. It is appropriate in those circumstances to suggest that the Government is not tough enough in policing the payment of unemployment benefit. I pay tribute to those who are unemployed and who are genuinely seeking work. They are victims of circumstance, and the hearts and minds of the Australian people go out to them. But I am not prepared to stand idly by and see the taxpayers’ hard earned money being fraudulently used by people who are out to defeat the system.

Mr Braithwaite:

– Parasites, that’s what they are.

Mr McVEIGH:

– My colleague the honourable member for Dawson aptly described them as parasites. These parasites have to be brought to heel. Notwithstanding the tremendous pressures exerted on society by civil liberty groups, it is appropriate these days to investigate the possibility of introducing a system of identity cards. If we supplied those who are currently unemployed with identity cards it would cost $ 1 .3m. That is a small amount of money compared with the amounts of money that are being fraudulently misappropriated. University students, people who want to make cash transactions and people travelling overseas have to produce positive proof of their identity. If we are serious about overcoming fraud and if we are serious about directing the taxpayers’ money to those most in need, surely there can be absolutely no objection to our introducing a system of identity cards and photographs in relation to people who receive social security benefits. I hope that some of the 700 extra staff whose salaries are being appropriated in the Budget will be trained especially in methods of identifying the people who should receive social security benefits. I hope that some sophisticated techniques will be evolved so that these staff members can make appropriate investigations without causing offense. If we have any intestinal fortitude we should stand up and be counted on this very important issue in order to ensure that money which is appropriated for the purpose of relieving those who are unemployed and those who find themselves in hardship does not go to other members of society.

The allowances we make available for handicapped people are another matter about which we can be tremendously proud. It is good to see that the Government has been very humane in its treatment of these very special people. It would be appropriate also to give praise to those people who labour in spastic centres and for organisations concerned with subnormal people. Only a few weeks ago, due to the initiative of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) who is a man of great compassion, a deputation of interested people led by the honourable member was able to see some of the things which are done in spastic centres and in homes for subnormal people. I know that the heart of the honourable member for Petrie was softened, and I am sure that the hearts of decent, honest people would have been softened, at the sight of a person who had no arms and no hands typing as good as any typist in Australia by means of an antenna on his head. I pay tribute therefore to any government which makes funds available to decent Australian people who give of their time and energy to bring the light of day to unfortunate people such as those seen by the honourable member for Petrie and me.

Mention has been made of family allowances. I think it is appropriate at this time to bring to the attention of people the fact that this Government is a government of compassion and tolerance. It is to be regretted that through the mass media prior to the announcement of the Budget much trauma was occasioned to, and much uncertainy was instilled in the minds of, many Australian families. The people who did this have no ethics and that is to be regretted. Family allowances are part and parcel of our scheme. I advance the thought to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) and the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) who are at the table, that when considering forward planning for good, decent living for all Australian people, they bear in mind that under the arrangements for the payment of family allowances and tertiary assistance there is some discrimination against big families. I believe that the real strength of Australia is in our families, the big families that have pioneered the harsh land of Australia and made it one of the great trading nations of the world. I believe it would be wrong for any government deliberately to design policies in the long term that discriminated against large families. We find under the existing arrangements that no family can receive at one and the same time a family allowance and a Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowance, that the one child family is better off by $1.75 a week, that the two-child family is better off by 25c a week and that the five-child family is worse off by $ 1.75 a week. That is to be regretted. One appreciates the difficulty the Government faces in a tight economic situation, but I hope that the Ministers will as part of the forward planning provide as part and parcel of the Australian social security scheme extra assistance to large families because they are the families most in need.

I want to correct a statement which was made by members of the Oppostion about secondary allowances for students. Students in the last two years of secondary school can still get the family and student allowances and I hope that those people who are facing traumas because of incorrect information on the subject sent out by Opposition members from time to time can take heart from the fact that families can still receive the student allowance in respect of secondary school children as well as the family allowance. I offer the suggestion that for future planning we should consider the indexation of family allowances. I know that the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) advanced an argument in relation to what has happened in this area. If we want to encourage Australian families and encourage mothers to stay at home we must index family allowances. The Labor Party comes in here with great criticisms, but let us examine what it did. In 1974 it reduced the education expenses allowance from $400 to $150 per annum again discriminating against the large family.

It is appropriate that the taxation system should be redesigned to help large families and allow mothers to choose from alternatives available to them. There is no greater resource than a good, large family with the mother staying at home to look after it. We need to change our direction. I believe that it is appropriate to transfer the unemployment benefit paid to young people to mothers to enable them to stay at home. It seems to me to be reasonable, desirable and just where a married woman is holding down a position and an unemployed youngster is getting the unemployment benefit for the unemployment benefit to be paid in the form of an allowance to the mother to enable her to stay at home and for the young person to be given the opportunity to work. Unless people engage in work when they are young they will lose an appreciation of the work ethic.

It is disappointing to see that the number of women in the work force increased from 444,700 in November 1961 to 1.4 million in 1977. The number of married women as a percentage of all women in the work force has increased from 42 per cent to 65 per cent in 1976. The taxation system needs to be one that taxes the family rather than the individual. It is wrong, I submit, in an overall tax strategy to have a situation where it is better for the wife to work and pay a lower rate of income tax than would be applicable if the extra money were earned by her husband. We do not seek to interfere with the right of a mother to work if she wishes, but we believe that those who do not want to work must not be made to work and that those who do want to work should feel free to do so. This is a responsible government. Much criticism has accrued to it. Most of that criticism has been unjust. I want to uphold the social security part of this Budget as a decision by a Government which wants to preserve basic family life, which wants to look after old people and which looks after old people in its total concept, not in isolation, but as part and parcel of fiscal responsibility wherein each and everyone has a special right and a special role to play.

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

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). I ask leave to make a short statement in response to it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– You have the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The honourable member for Darling Downs criticised me for saying earlier tonight that when the Labor Government left office the standard rate of pension was 25 per cent of average earnings. It was. The rate of pension which was introduced in about November 1975 was 25 per cent of average weekly earnings for the June quarter of that year. That is the proper and relevant basis to use to make that sort of measurement. It is the same sort of principle that the Government uses with its indexation; namely, until now, indexation has been on the basis of the half year to the June quarter. It will be the full year to the June quarter. It would be nonsense trying to measure a pension increase in relation to either the consumer price index or average weekly earnings for the December quarter when those figures do not come out until the succeeding new year.

Mr McVeigh:

– I seek to further the information that I gave in my speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is customary for honourable members to acquaint the Chair of their intention to seek indulgence to make an explanation where they claim to be misrepresented. The honourable member has not done so in this case.

Mr McVeigh:

– I seek the indulgence of the Chair to make a personal explanation because I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may address himself to that matter.

Mr McVEIGH (Darling Downs)-One appreciates the sensitivity of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). What I want to make sure of is the fact of the situation, not a figment of the mind of a person who seeks to manipulate facts, to distort facts.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is debating the matter. He has the indulgence of the Chair to indicate in what manner he was misrepresented.

Mr McVEIGH:

– The facts of the matter are that in December 1975 when the people of Australia overwhelmingly threw out a government -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 64

NOES: 29

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Thursday, 12 October 1978

Question put:

That the Bill be no w read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 60

NOES: 29

Majority…… 31

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I move:

Arrangements could easily have been made by the Government for this very complex legislation to be dealt with by a legislation committee.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 64

NOES: 29

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier tonight, the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) indicated that there would be ample time for debate on this question. It is quite obvious that the Government has repudiated that statement. The Government is not prepared to allow this matter to go to a committee and quite obviously -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Corio be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 63

NOES: 29

Majority……. 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I would like to support the motion. Before the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) moves that I be not further heard-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat for a moment. The question is that this Bill be referred to a select committee,

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the honourable member for Prospect be not further heard.

Dr Klugman:

-Do you want a division or an explanation on this? It would take only a minute to get a reply rather than-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect will resume his seat. The Leader of the House-

Dr Klugman:

-I ask the Leader of the House to withdraw his motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the House has moved that the honourable member for Prospect be not further heard.

Mr Sinclair:

– What do you want to do?

Dr Klugman:

-I want to put it on record that we have asked that a legislation committee be set up.

Mr Sinclair:

– That is another item of business. We have not got to that yet. You have given notice of that. This is for the establishment of a select committee, which is a different motion again.

Dr Klugman:

– Will we have to go through the whole thing again?

Mr Sinclair:

– That is the next notice of motion. I have been informed that because it does not go on the Notice Paper you can do so. I did not realise that. You have given notice of it but it does not go on the Notice Paper, I understand. I withdraw my motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Prospect.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

Before the debate on this Bill commenced I gave notice that I would move that the two Bills that are the subject of a cognate debate be referred to legislation committees. The Clerk read that notice. I would like to know what the procedure is. The only reason we want these Bills to be referred to a select committee is that there has been no official idication about what will happen to our motion that these Bills be referred to legislation committees. If the Leader of the House cares to give some explanation, we might save ourselves at least one division.

Mr Sinclair:

– As I explained, and as I understand it, it is necessary for 24 hours notice to be given before Bills can be referred to legislation committees. The notice of motion that the honourable member for Prospect gave today has not been put on the Notice Paper and I have been advised that as it is not on the Notice Paper it is not possible for the matter to be referred to the legislation committees. If the honourable member cares to refer to Standing Order 141 he will see that it reads:

A notice of motion becomes effective only when it appears on the Notice Paper.

Mr Scholes:

– The Leader of the House is aware, as is anyone else in this chamber, that the motion which the honourable member for Prospect wishes to move can be moved by leave if the Leader of the House is prepared to give that leave. Quite obviously he is depending on the Standing Order because he does not want to give that leave.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– What is wrong with that?

Mr Scholes:

– That is fair enough, but why does not the Government be honest and say that it will not send the legislation to legislation committees? Then we all would know where we stand.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order ! Is the honourable member for Prospect seeking leave?

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Yes. I am seeking leave.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted. The honourable member for Prospect had the call. He has concluded his remarks.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– No. The Leader of the House moved that the motion be now put, if I recall correctly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That motion was withdrawn. The honourable member for Prospect has the call if he wishes to address the Chair.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– The only point I would like to make is that this is quite involved legislation. I quite honestly and sincerely say, as I said earlier- obviously most honourable members were not here then- that I challenge most honourable members opposite to tell me the meaning of much of the contents of the legislation that we are debating at the present timethe Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill and the Social Services Amendment Bill. Surely the types of committees we have established- the legislation committees- were set up for the purpose of getting some explanation from either the Minister in charge of the legislation or the Assistant Minister. It is quite obvious that this legislation will not be debated in the Senate before next week. So I cannot possibly see any reason why a legislation committee cannot meet for half an hour at some time tomorrow so that those of us who are interested in this can get some explanations. This probably would save us a lot of bother in dividing on about seven parts of the social security legislation. It just strikes me as being a much more sensible approach.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Stewart:

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-I call the honourable member for Grayndler on a point of order.

Mr Stewart:

– A few minutes ago the Leader of the House declared that the Opposition cannot move that a Bill be referred to a legislation committee. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to explain why you accepted that proposition. I have in front of me the House of Representatives legislation committees sessional orders adopted on 8 June 1978 and operative from 15 August 1978. They read:

Committal and consideration in committee:

1 ) Standing order 222 be amended to read- 222. After the second reading, or when proceeding under standing order 221, after those proceedings have been disposed of, the House shall forthwith resolve itself into a committee of the whole for the consideration of the bill unless-

the bill has been referred to a select committee; or

the House refers the bill (not being an Appropriation or Supply Bill) to a legislation committee. Such referral shall be on motion moved by any Member, of which notice has been given, and shall be carried without any dissentient voice. A committee may be ordered to report by a specified date.

Provided that, in lieu of proceeding under the foregoing provisions of this standing order, the House may grant leave for the question “That this bill -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I feel that the honourable member for Grayndler has made his point. Standing Order 141 indicates that a notice of motion becomes effective only when it appears on the Notice Paper. The notice of motion which the honourable member for Prospect has foreshadowed does not appear on the Notice Paper.

Mr Stewart:

– Speaking to the same point of order, Standing Order 133 also states:

Notice of motion shall be given by a Member by either stating its terms to the House and delivering a copy to the Clerk or delivering a copy of its terms to the Clerk. The notice must be signed by the Member and seconder and show the day proposed for moving the motion.

The honourable member for Prospect has given notice to the Clerk.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair adheres to its earlier ruling that the notice of motion does not become effective until it appears on the Notice Paper. In fact, the intended notice of motion has not appeared on the Notice Paper.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to support the motion that Standing Orders be suspended.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable member for Chifley raising a point of order?

Mr Armitage:

– No, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking to the proposition which has been moved, which I think I have the right to do. Have we got to the stage where we cannot even discuss things in this Parliament? I support the proposition as moved.

Mr Sinclair:

– I raise a point of order. I have already moved that the question be put.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. He may not be aware that the Leader of the House moved at the time that the honourable member for Grayndler raised a point of order that the question be put.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 63

NOES: 28

Majority…… 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the Bill be referred to a select committee.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 28

NOES: 63

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

In Committee

Clause 1 (Short title).

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 12.41 a.m. (Thursday)

page 1780

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Advertising (Question No. 28)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by the Department of Administrative Services on advertising and services during the period (a) 11 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 and (d) 1 July 1977 to date.
  2. What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78.
Mr Street:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. (a) $20,021; (b) $343,339; (c) $255,039; (d) $1,003,488 (1 July 1977 to 31 March 1978); Total $1,621,887.
  2. The cost of each campaign undertaken was:
  1. Funds for each campaign were allocated as follows: Disposal of Property and Material:
  1. and (5) The advertising agencies or consultants used for each campaign and the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign were:
  1. Advertisements are normally made through the Australian Government Advertising Service with the exception of some small local advertising which is placed direct with country and provincial newspapers.
  2. The estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78 is $1,309,000.

The above answers have been compiled from information extracted from the records of the Department of Administrative Services.

Domestic Oil Heater (Question No. 204)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 February 1978:

  1. Is the Minister able to provide further information to that provided on pages 8 and 9 of the 1976-77 Report of the Commonwealth Fire Board relating to a brand of defective domestic oil heater.
  2. What was the nature of the specific defect that resulted in the heater being considered a fire risk.
  3. 3 ) What was the brand of heater concerned.
  4. What action has been taken nationally to ensure that this brand of heater has been rendered safe in operation.
  5. Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of 6 October 1977 as question No. 1685 and remain unanswered at the close of the last Parliament
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Reports of malfunctions in domestic oil heaters in . Government houses in the A.C.T. led the Commonwealth Fire Board to report that the heaters constituted a fire risk. Although there was no evidence to suggest that a heater of the type in question had actually caused a fire in a Government house, the Commonwealth Fire Board considered that an unacceptable potential fire risk existed.
  2. The Commonwealth Fire Board has advised that it is not possible to single out a specific defect which resulted in the heater being considered a fire risk. Malfunctions consisted of ignition difficulties, sooting and blowbacks or explosions. Prior to modification of the heater, the parts most commonly requiring replacement were heater switches, circuit boards, pre-heat elements, burner fans and valves.
  3. The Commonwealth Fire Board has advised that the heater concerned was the ‘Wonderheat’ manufactured by Malleys Limited. This type of heater has not been manufactured since 1975.
  4. The Commonwealth Fire Board has advised that modifications intended to overcome the difficulties were undertaken by the manufacturer in 1975. The modifications were generally successful in countering the fire hazard problems such as blowbacks. However, there was only marginal improvement in the faults associated with the circuit boards, controlling ignition functions and faulty fans. Consequently, contracts for the comprehensive servicing and maintenance of the oil heaters were let under the Department of the Capital Territory’s Repairs and Maintenance Program. The contracts have now entered their second year of operation and are proving to be effective in preventing many of the problems formerly experienced with heaters in Commonwealth residences.
  5. Yes.

Carpet (Question No. 205)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice on 23 February 1978:

  1. What was the brand of carpet referred to in item (b) on page 9 of the 1 976-77 Report of the Commonwealth Fire Board.
  2. By whom was it marketed and where was it manufactured.
  3. What steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the type of incident referred to in this item.
  4. Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of 6 October 1977 as Question No. 1684 and remain unanswered at the close of the last Parliament.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The manufacturer of the carpet and place of manufacture are not known with absolute certainty. The Commonwealth Fire Board has advised that it appears the carpet was purchased more than 12 years ago. Records containing the details sought are not kept for this length of time.
  2. The Commonwealth Fire Board has advised that the fire properties of materials such as floor coverings are based mainly on tests conducted in accordance with Standards Association of Australia, Australian Standard 1S30, Part 3. Although it has been the practice within the Commonwealth for many years to take into consideration these properties when selecting carpets, formal fire properties criteria only began to emerge at about the time the carpet in question was purchased.

The full implications and need for the criteria were established in the following years and this culminated in the issue of instructions by the Department of Construction in 1972, and of recommendations by the Commonwealth Fire Board in 197S. The Board’s recommendations tabulated in its Annual Report 1974-75 at pages 8-11, were determined in co-operation with and on the basis of updated proposals prepared by the Department of Construction.

The Commonwealth Fire Board advises that its recommendations are generally being followed by Departments.

  1. Yes.

Leasing of Office Space (Question No. 700)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 March 1978:

  1. How many square metres of office space were leased by the Australian Government during 1975-76 and 1976-77.
  2. In which cities was the majority of leased space located.
  3. What percentage was located in the Central Business Districts of those cities.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The total area of office space leased by the Australian Government for departments was 158,503 square metres during 1975-76 and 180,824 square metres during 1976-77.
  2. The majority of the office space leased during the stated periods was located in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra.
  3. The following table identifies office space leased in those capital cities during the stated periods, together with the percentage leased in the Central Business District of each city.

The above figures are based on records available in the Department of Administrative Services. The Department does not have complete details of the space leased by statutory bodies. These figures have, therefore, been omitted in preparing the above table.

IBM Memory Typewriters (Question No. 763)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which (a) departments and (b) senators or members have been allocated use of IBM memory typewriters.
  2. What is the (a) total number of machines and (b) unit value of each machine.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. (a) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs; The Attorney-General’s Department; the Department of Construction; The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations; The Postal and Telecommunications Department; The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; The Department of Productivity.

    1. Apart from a machine in use in the Prime Minister’s Office, no IBM memory typewriter has been allocated for the use of senators or members.

  2. (a) and (b)-

The above answers have been compiled from information supplied by Departments and on the assumption that the question refers to IBM memory typewriters that are fully self-contained and use no essential facilities such as cards or tapes.

Medical and Hospital Benefits Organisations (Question No. 1074)

Mr Howe:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) With reference to section 76a of the National Health Act, when does he anticipate tabling the report on the operations of the registered medical and hospital benefits organisations.
  2. Does he recognise the difficulties involved in his calling for stimulating public debate on health costs when the most recently published information on the operations of the health insurance funds is now almost 2 years out of date, and in which time dramatic changes have been made to the health insurance arrangements.
  3. Is the delay in tabling the report due to failure by some health insurance funds to provide the Department with the basic information concerning their operations.
  4. Which funds in each State failed to submit the prescribed financial statements to the Permanent Head of his Department within 3 months of the expiration of 1976-77, and how many funds have been prosecuted under subsection 76 ( 1 ) of the Act.
  5. Will he specify the information that he currently requires from the funds under sub-section 74c ( 1 ) of the Act.
  6. Will he name those organisations which have failed to provide complete returns to him pursuant to directions issued under sub-section 74c (2) of the Act within 3 months of receiving those directions.
  7. What action does he propose to take in relation to health insurance funds which do not comply with directions issued by him under section 74c of the Act.

This answer replaces the answer previously supplied to the honourable member on 8 June (Hansard, page 3400).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The report on the operations of the registered medical and hospital benefits organisations under section 76a of the National Health Act, in respect of the year 1976-77, was tabled on 19 September 1978.
  2. The Government recognises that the effectiveness of information contained in the report must be reduced by delays in its publication. Steps are being taken to minimise such delays.
  3. The main reason for the delay in tabling the report under section 76a of the National Health Act in recent years including the 1976-77 Report has been the late lodgment of annual returns by many of the registered organisations. It seems that these delays have been largely due to administrative difficulties within the respective organisations caused by changes to the health insurance arrangements. I understand, for example, that a number of organisations have had transitional problems following major changes to the Scheme from 1 October 1976.
  4. The organisations in each State which failed to furnish their annual accounts for 1976-77 within the statutory time of three months after the close of the financial year are:

New South Wales

Grand United Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society of New South Wales

Health Insurance Commission

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society of New South Wales

Hunter Medical Benefits Fund Limited

New South Wales District, No. 85, Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Unity, Friendly Society

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited

Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society in New South Wales

New South Wales Teachers ‘ Federation Health Society

N.I.B. Health Funds Limited

Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia Grand Council of New South Wales

Store Hospital and Medical Fund

Wollongong Hospital and Medical Benefits Contribution Fund

Victoria

Australian Natives’ Association

Grand United Hospital Benefit Society in Victoria Friendly Society

Health Insurance Commission

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, Victoria District No. 1

Independent Order of Odd Fellows of Victoria

Irish National Foresters ‘ Benefit Society

Latrobe Valley Hospitals and Health Services Association

Manchester Unity Independent Order of Odd Fellows in Victoria

Queensland

Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society in Queensland

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, Queensland District No. 5

Health Insurance Commission

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited

Queensland Teachers’ Union Health Society

South Australia

Fire Service Health Fund

Health Insurance Commission

National Health Services Association of South Australia

S.A. Police Department Employees’ Hospital Fund

South Australian District, No. 8 1 , Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly Society

Western Australia

Friendly Societies Health Services

Goldfields Medical Fund (Incorporated)

Health Insurance Commission

Hospital Benefits Fund of Western Australia Incorporated

Government Employees ‘Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund Incorporated

Tasmania

Druids Friendly Society of Tasmania

Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Medical and Hospital Funds

Health Insurance Commission

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited

Queenstown Medical Union Ancillary Medical Benefits

Fund

Queenstown Medical Union Hospital Benefits Fund

St Luke ‘s Medical and Hospital Benefits Association

Sub-section 76 (2) of the Act provides that an extension of time for the lodgment of annual accounts may be granted at the Permanent Head ‘s discretion. In view of the administrative difficulties being experienced by many organisations, extensions have usually been granted when applied for. However, action has been taken against organisations under the provisions of sub-section 75 (3) of the Act on specific matters, although it has not been found necessary to initiate prosecutions under these provisions to date.

I might add it has been decided that in future extensions under sub-section 76 (2) of the Act will only be granted in extreme circumstances. (5), (6) and (7) No directions have been served under section 74c of the National Health Act.

Commonwealth Offices in the Electoral Division of Parramatta (Question No. 1713)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. What is (a) the total office size, (b) the rental cost for (i) the year 1977-78 and (ii) the period 1 July 1978 to date, (c) the administrative costs, and (d) the number of staff temporary and permanent, in occupation of the following Commonwealth offices within the Electoral Division of Parramatta: (A) the Acoustic Laboratory of the Department of Health, 68 Macquarie Street, (B) the Australian Electoral Office, 28 George Street, (C) the Commonwealth Employment Service, 30 Darcy Street, (D) the Bureau of Customs, 30 Darcy Street, (E) the Family Court of Australia, (F) the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, 23 George Street, (G) Medibank, S3 Phillip Street, (H) Medibank, Church Street, (I) Qantas, 20 Macquarie Street, (J) the Department of Social Security, 68 Macquarie Street, (K) the Department of Social Security, Level 6, Westfield Centre, (L) Telecom Australia,5th Floor, 30 Darcy Street and (M) the Taxation Office, 126 Church Street.
  2. Are there any Commonwealth offices within the Electoral Division of Parramatta not listed in part ( 1 ).
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) The total office size was 17,836 square metres. The rental costs for 1977-78 and the period 1 July to 31 August 1978 were $994,401 and $168,552 respectively for the Commonwealth Offices you refer to with the exception of the Qantas Office at 20 Macquarie Street. Qantas does not fall within the ambit of the Land Acquisition Act administered by the Department of Administrative Services and therefore arranges its own accommodation. The honourable member should seek the details required from the Minister for Transport.

    1. The administrative costs for the premises listed fall within the total financial votes allocated to the Department of Administrative Services and the occupying department/ authority. To seek this information from my respective colleagues I would need to have specific details of what costs are under reference;
    2. I can only provide you with details of staff of the Australian Electoral Office at 28 George Street. There were 3 permanent and 1 temporary staff in occupation as at 3 1 July 1978. To obtain details of staff members of other Departments the honourable member should approach the Ministers concerned.

  2. Yes. I am informed that in recent correspondence with the Department of Administrative Services a complete list of Commonwealth offices administered by the Department in the Electoral Division of Parramatta was provided to you.

Seat Occupancy on Qantas Flights (Question No. 1762)

Mr Bradfield:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 7 August 1 978:

How many passengers (a) occupied first class seats, (b) utilised airline employee discount entitlements and occupied first class seats, (c) occupied economy class seats and (d) utilised airline employee discount entitlements and occupied economy class seats on Qantas flights during 1977-78.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 16,583 passengers occupied first class seats,
  2. 8,237 passengers occupied first class seats utilising airline employee or travel industry air fare entitlements,
  3. 1,608,110 passengers occupied economy class seats, and
  4. 118,540 passengers occupied economy class seats utilising airline employee or travel industry air fare entitlements on Qantas flights during 1 977-78.

Precise figures are not available from the airline to show the split of traffic between airline employee entitlements (not necessarily all Qantas employees) and travel industry entitlements. However, they are estimated to be in the ratio of airline employee, three; travel industry, one for first class entitlements and a significantly higher ratio of airline employee travel for economy class entitlements.

All international airlines offer reduced fare entitlements under the provisions of their approved tariff of charges.

Normally such travel is only offered on a seat available basis.

The airlines derive some revenue from persons using these entitlements.

International Air Service Flights on Domestic Routes (Question No. 1802)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What were the findings of his Department’s study of the passage of international air traffic over routes within Australia.
  2. 2 ) Will he table the report of the study.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Report Part1 which was released recently covered, in chapter 15, a number of matters concerning the interface between domestic and international operators and recommended no change in respect to interlining and that prorationing of fares not be introduced.

Related issues were considered by the Committee that inquired into Australia’s international civil aviation policy.

  1. Copies of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Report- Part 1 have already been placed in the Parliamentary Library. I intend to table the Report as soon as sufficient copies are available.

I expect to release the International Civil Aviation Policy Review Report in the near future.

Transport Inquiries (Question No. 1804)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What reviews, studies or inquiries relating to transport have been initiated by him since 15November 1977.
  2. On what date was each initiated.
  3. 3 ) Which studies have been completed.
  4. What action has been taken to table in the Parliament the reports of those completed.
  5. What progress has been made in those inquiries not yet completed and when is it expected each will be completed.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 5 ) See attached tables.

Inquiries completed

Study Highway Corridor Study (Penguin to Burnie)Initiated November 1 977- Report not yet tabled.

Inquiries not completed

Study into Maritime Safety Communications- Initiated August 1978- Expect completion August 1979.

Report on 1973-78 Urban Public Transport AgreementInitiated April 1978- Expect completion November 1978.

Review of General Aviation- Initiated September 1978- Expect completion September 1979.

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences study into motor vehicle emission controls in Australia- Initiated July 1 978-Expect completion December 1978.

National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee (Question No. 1824)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. What were his reasons for appointing each of the members of the National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee.
  2. What experience has each of the Members of the National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee had in stimulating Aboriginal employment.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. and (2) When the Government approved of the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals in 1977 it decided that there should be a national campaign to stimulate the employment of Aboriginals throughout Australia. The members of the National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee were appointed in order to spearhead that campaign, in particular they have the task of stimulating positive action by employers in providing employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal people. The Government sought a broadly based Committee whose combined experience in industry and Aboriginal affairs equips them to be in a position to positively promote the cause of Aboriginal employment to their fellow Australians.

Mining of Aboriginal Land (Question No. 1935)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. Has the Government stated as policy that mining of Aboriginal land should be in a manner which reflects the views of traditional owners, and that royalties should be for the benefit of Aboriginals with a fair proportion in trust for those owners.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to possible breaches of these principles by the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act 1973 of Queensland.
  3. If so, what steps has the Government taken to correct this position.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. The November 1973 statement of the Liberal and National Country Parties’ Aboriginal Affairs Policy indicated that in recognising the land rights of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory, we would ensure: that mineral prospecting and mineral development should only be allowed under strict Government control and in a manner which protects sacred sites and reflects the views and needs of the traditional Aboriginal owners; that royalties from mining be used for the benefit of the Aboriginal people and that a fair proportion thereof be paid in trust on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land on which mining is conducted ‘.
  2. and (3) Yes. See answers to questions in the House of Representatives in 1976 relating to this matter (Hansard, page 864). I have indicated earlier this year that I intend to have further discussions with the companies concerned and with the Aurukun community.

Aviation Industry Advisory Council (Question No. 1964)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport upon notice on 13 September 1978:

  1. What criteria were followed in selecting members for the Aviation Industry Advisory Council as announced on 13 July 1978.
  2. Are consumers and/or consumer associations directly represented on the AIAC: if not, is it proposed to provide for their representation.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. When selecting members for the Aviation Industry Advisory Council I was concerned that I should receive the broadest range of industry advice from the Council and, given the charter of the Council, that membership should be available to only the most senior members of the industry to enable full, frank and authoritive discussion on all matters submitted for Council consideration.
  2. As the Council will be concerned primarily with technical and economic considerations relating to the operation of aircraft and the provision of the infrastructure to support those operations, it was not considered appropriate to include consumer representatives on the Council.

The honourable member may be aware that the question of obtaining consumer views was addressed as pan of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review. The Committee ‘s report concluded that consumer preferences and views could best be obtained by surveys of passengers and potential passengers.

Investigation of Air Accidents and Aircraft Incidents (Question No. 1967)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 September 1978:

What criteria does his Department use for the investigation of (a) air accidents and (b) aircraft incidents.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Air Navigation Regulations at Part XVI define an accident and incident in relation to an aircraft and, in addition, specify the notification requirements to my Department. The definitions are consistent with those contained in Annex 13 to The Convention On International Civil Aviation.

For the purposes of reporting and investigation, an aircraft accident is considered to be an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all these persons have disembarked, in which:

any person suffers death or serious injury as a result of being in or upon the aircraft or by direct contact with the aircraft or anything attached to the aircraft; or

the aircraft incurs damage or structural failure which adversely affects the structure strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected components; or

the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

For the purpose of reporting and investigation, an air safety incident is considered to be an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation. In addition the air safety investigation reporting system accepts any reports, requests, complaints and suggestions which relate, or might relate to the safe operation of aircraft.

All aircraft accidents, air safety incidents and associated reports which come to the notice of my Department are investigated by the Air Safety Investigation Branch.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1661 (Question No. 2057)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1 66 1 .

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The answer to Question No. 1661 appeared in Hansard, 14 September 1978, page 1095.

Shipping: Light Dues (Question No. 2142)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What has been the rate of recovery under the Light Dues Levy during the period 1 January 1 975 to date.
  2. When does he expect to achieve full cost recovery of Light Dues.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) January 1975 to June 1975-108 percent; July 1975 to June 1976-86.86 per cent; July 1976 to June 1977-97.93 percent; July 1977 to June 1978-107.42 percent.
  2. A policy of full cost recovery has operated since 1 972.

Health Insurance (Question No. 2123)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. Has he received many communications expressing confusion and uncertainty as to what course to take with respect to health insurance after 1 November 1 978.
  2. Has he admitted that the new health insurance scheme is only on trial for a period of 8 months.
  3. Will the Government give an undertaking that any person who forgoes private insurance after 1 November 1978 will obtain immediate cover should it be necessary or advantageous for that person to return to it at the end of, or at any time during, the trial period.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. There is no such thing as a ‘trial period ‘ in the new arrangements. A particular feature of these arrangements is their simplicity. Persons without private insurance will receive free accommodation and treatment in shared rooms of recognised hospitals by hospital doctors and Commonwealth medical benefits of 40 per cent of the Schedule fee for medical services or the Schedule fee less $20 whichever is the greater amount. Therefore, uninsured persons have substantial health cover without direct cost to themselves. Bulkbilling arrangements providing higher levels of Commonwealth medical benefits will apply for eligible pensioners and disadvantaged persons.

A person may wish to take out basic and /or hospital insurance andwill receive immediate cover on becoming a contributor to insurance between 1 November and 31 December 1978. After that period the normal maximum two months’ waiting period will apply if the insurance organisation’s rules provide for that waiting period. From 1 January 1979 the Government would have no intention of requiring insurance organisations to vary the normal waiting period provisions.

Public Participation in Transport Planning (Question No. 2145)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

What methodology has the Bureau of Transport Economics developed for the effective implementation of public participation in transport planning, as mentioned on page 24 of his Department’s 1976-77 Annual Report.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Bureau of Transport Economics has recently published an Occasional Paper, Number 20, entitled ‘Public Participation in Transport Planning- Australia’ which reports the Bureau’s work in this regard.

Transport: Production and Procurement of Rolling Stock (Question No. 2147) Mr Morris asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 September 1 978:

Will the Bureau of Transport Economics publish its examination of the economies of the production and procurement of rolling stock by Australian operators, as mentioned on page 27 of his Department’s 1976-77 Annual Report.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Bureau of Transport Economics has examined the economics of production and procurement of rolling stock, utilising as a case study the possible standardisation of the Australian urban bus.

The results of the study suggest that standardisation could reduce bus costs by 5 per cent. A more likely reduction following a practicable standardisation program would be about 3 per cent.

This study forms part of the BTE’s program of background research and no formal report is planned.

Tarcoola-Alice Springs Railway (Question No. 2173)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What size railway lines are being used in the track being constructed on the new Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway and in which sections of the track are those lines being used.
  2. What sections are being laid with (a) new rails and (b) second hand rails.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The track from Tarcoola to Manguri has been laid with new 53kg/m rail and from Manguri to the present railhead with new 47kg/m rail. ANR expect to use second hand 40kg/m and 47kg/m rail, made available from relaying work on the Trans Australian Railway, for track north of Marla. All sidings and crossing loops are being constructed from second hand 40kg/ m rail.

Australian National Railways: Staffing (Question No. 2175)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What reductions in staff have taken place in the former Commonwealth Railways section of Australian National Railways since June 1975.
  2. What reductions have taken place in each of the branches of that system since June 1975 and how many of those have been (a) salaried and (b) wages staff.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. From June 1975 to 25 September 1978 the total number of staff employed in the former Commonwealth Railways section of the Australian National Railways has decreased by 510.
  2. Reductions in staff have occurred in four branches as set out below:

There was an increase in staff of 56 in the other Branches. The transfer of 389 employees (Locomotive Enginemen and Associated Clerical Staff) from the Mechanical Engineering to the Operations Branch on 1.7.78 has not been included in the above figures.

Photographs of Queen Elizabeth (Question No. 2183)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that copies of portraits of Queen Elizabeth II for use in primary and secondary schools are presently unavailable.
  2. If so, for how long is it expected that this situation will prevail and what action is the Department of Administrative Services taking to remedy the position.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 understand that because of an unexpectedly large number of requests for photographs of The Queen stocks were exhausted for a short period in the Commonwealth office in Brisbane that provides them for schools.
  2. Stocks have since been replenished. I regret any inconvenience caused to the honourable member.

Petrol Prices (Question No. 2198)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the present wholesale petrol prices in each of the centres from which the Government’s fuel freight subsidy equalisation scheme is calculated, and what were they on 1 August 1978.
  2. What is the maximum permitted wholesale price above these prices after allowing for freight and the effect of the Government’s fuel freight equalisation subsidy scheme.
  3. ) Is the scheme now operating in every State.
Mr Fife:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) Unlike the previous subsidy scheme which was based on the relevant capital city wholesale prices, the current scheme subsidises the freight component of the price of eligible products to the extent that the rural customer pays no more than 4c per gallon (0.88c per litre) of the freight costs. It is no longer possible to relate the subsidy scheme to capital city wholesale prices as these vary between the capital cities and between oil companies.
  2. Yes.

Customs Surveillance Aircraft (Question No. 2357)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his answer to a question without notice on customs surveillance aircraft (Hansard, 19 September 1978, page 1 103), what is the minimum speed of the 3 aircraft required by the Bureau of Customs for customs surveillance.
  2. On what basis was the figure calculated and on what past experience of the Bureau is that speed regarded as a minimum.
  3. Which officers of the Bureau prepared the tender for the surveillance aircraft.
  4. What experience in air surveillance have these officers had.
  5. If they have had no surveillance experience, what expert advice did they receive and from which persons or organisations was it received.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The original range speed requirement for the Customs aircraft was 220 knots. This however has now been changed to allow aircraft capable of ISO knot range speed to be considered.
  2. See answer to ( 1 ) above.
  3. (4) and (5) Are not within my province and relate to affairs of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 October 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19781011_reps_31_hor111/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant