House of Representatives
17 October 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1893

PRIVILEGE

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I raise a matter of privilege. I was astounded to read in the Sun-Herald of last Sunday an article which was written by Mr Neil O’Reilly concerning the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I will read the article or as much of it as you would like read. It states:

Disturbing allegations concerning a photocopied proof of Hansard have been dubbed the ‘Greengate affair’ in top circles around Parliament House.

The incident- involving the outspoken Tasmanian Liberal MP Mr Bruce Goodluck- is regarded by many as possible intimidation to stop backbenchers criticising the Budget.

Mr Goodluck claims that a Hansard proof of a speech he had made- known as a ‘green’- was removed from his desk and photocopied without his permission.

Mr Goodluck was away giving a television interview at the time.

Later, copies of the transcript of the television interview were sent to all Liberal MPs.

Mr Goodluck has been a critic of some Budget proposals, and on Thursday he abstained from voting on the legislation which changed the payment of cost-of-living adjustments to pensioners from twice a year to once a year.

It was this measure that Mr Goodluck had criticised in his speech on September 28, the night he gave the television interview.

Mr Goodluck revealed this week that he had made the speech late in the afternoon and had then gone to a television studio to be interviewed.

Later, somebody had told him that his’ greens ‘ -

We all know what ‘greens’ means- had been removed while he was away.

He said he had been told the name of the person who had removed them, but could not reveal it because he could not prove it.

Later, he had asked somebody else whether the ‘greens’ had been removed.

The member had blustered at first, but had then waved a photocopy of his speech at him and criticised him for attacking the Government.

Mr Goodluck said that last week Liberal MPs had received a copy of the transcript of his television interview through the mail.

He said he believed that some people were trying to deter him from publicly criticising the Government.

I am very annoyed at some of the occurrences over the last week’, he added.

On Thursday night, three colleagues joined him in not voting for the pension legislation.

Some Senators are threatening to do the same thing when the legislation is debated in their chamber.

Some Government MPs feel strongly about rebels like Mr Goodluck, and feel they are trying to have ‘the best of both worlds. ‘

They say that out of loyalty to the Government they should support measures with which they privately disagree and they have to bear the public hostility.

However, there is also a strong group who believe in the right of Liberal MPs to criticise the Government publicly without risking party discipline.

Mr Speaker, what concerns me are statements such as the one that has been made by the honourable member that someone in this place entered his room and interfered with his private papers. We all know that if an honourable member wants a copy of a Minister’s reply, he has to get permission. Before anyone can touch any of our ‘greens’ at any time, he has to get our permission. I am concerned that this sort of thing can happen. We saw a situation last week wherein the Government Whip endeavoured to interfere with an honourable member who wanted to leave the chamber. From my point of view, Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentlemen is raising an issue of privilege relating to a newspaper report.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is correct, sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I wish him to speak to that matter solely.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Because of the Press report that an honourable member’s private papers were interfered with and that his room was entered without his permission I move:

That this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will not accept the motion. Under Standing Orders it is necessary for me to examine the matter raised to see whether a prima facie case exists. I will report to the House. It will then be in the hands of the honourable member for Newcastle to decide what action he should take.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I accept that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I draw to the attention of the two honourable members on my left who have just come into the House that the Standing Orders require that members should not pass between the person who is on his feet and the Speaker. That is especially true when the Speaker is speaking. I ask honourable members to comply with the practice of the House.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I should like to speak to the matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). I refer to the same point and I ask that when you take into consideration the questions raised by the honourable member for Newcastle you study the publication known as the Laurie Oakes Report of 18 October 1978. In it quite serious allegations are made against an honourable member whose name I will not mention because the proceedings of the House are being broadcast. It is alleged that the honourable member concerned had been seen -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable member for Hindmarsh purporting to raise a separate issue of privilege or is he speaking to the same point?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I am speaking to the same point.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will allow the honourable gentleman to continue.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will not speak at length. I just draw your attention to the Laurie Oakes Report because it puts on this quite serious incident a slant different from that put by the honourable member for Newcastle. It is really a much more serious allegation than the one that the honourable member for Newcastle mentioned. I simply ask that you look at that as well.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Of course, at a later hour I will state my opinion as to whether a prima facie case exists. I remind the House that if a question of privilege alleging the intimidation of a member is to be raised, I would expect the member himself to raise it, rather than the issue arising out of a secondhand report in a newspaper. I will report to the House later.

page 1894

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pornographic Publications

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

  1. To prevent the sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes;
  2. To penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children;
  3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale of such pornographic 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 every pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Cohen, Mr Humphreys, Mr Hunt, Mr MacKenzie, Mr McLean, Mr Lucock and Mr Shack.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth:

That whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index Figures;

And whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half yearly each May and November;

It is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics, of Democratic Government, and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their Subsistence.

The Foregoing Facts impel the 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 Pensioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N. A. Brown, Dr Cass, Mr Hodgman, Mr Martin, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Uren and Mr Young.

Petitions received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

  1. Have been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc. (Note: Refer quotations reverse side)
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 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 familylife 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 Lionel Bowen, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Dobie, Mr Fry, and Mr Jull.

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 Aldred, Dr Cass, Mr MacKenzie and Mr McLean.

Petitions received.

The Budget

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

The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray by Mr Cohen, Mr FitzPatrick, Mr Jacobi and Mr Les Johnson.

Petitions received.

Education

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

That 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 opportunity 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 Mr Les Johnson.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

That 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 increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the CPI, 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 CPI as promised by the Prime Minister in 1975 policy speech.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Killen.

Petitions received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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

The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully ask:

  1. That the Federal Government move immediately towards the recognition of full land rights in West Australia as recommended by the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission (pars 745, 748, 777).
  2. That an export embargo be placed on all minerals mined from land which is an Aboriginal reserve, or under claim by Aborigines, where consent to enter, explore, or mine has not been obtained by the traditional owners, if any, the local Aboriginal community, the Kimberley Land Council, and the WA Aboriginal Lands Trust.
  3. That the Federal Government act to ensure that no Amendment be made to Regulation 8 of the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act, which would give the Minister the power to issue entry permits onto Aboriginal land, without the permission of the Aborigines themselves. by MrDawkins.

Petition received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

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

The humble Petition of the undersigned members and exmembers of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

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

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizen Air Force. by Mr Hodgman.

Petition received.

Unemployment

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

This humble petition of undersigned Christian citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:

  1. . We petition that the Australian Government should take urgent action to reduce the level of unemployment.
  2. We request that the Government makes firm and public commitments regarding policies for the reduction of unemployment.
  3. We request that these commitments include target dates for the progressive reduction of unemployment.

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

Petition received.

Aged Persons Accommodation

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 andnursing 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 NSW.
  2. Take immediate action to provide sufficient funds in the current financial year to finance the construction and maintenance of an aged-persons complex, providing hostel and nursing bed accommodation in this area.

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

Petition received.

page 1896

AIR TRAVEL TO AND FROM TASMANIA

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

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

  1. That because an additional 3,000 passengers have travelled between Tasmania and the mainland by air in the month of September and as pensioners, families and tourists have benefited substantially, the standby airfare concession scheme should be made permanent; and
  2. That if an overseas carrier is not prepared to institute a direct Tasmania-New Zealand air service an Australian domestic airline operator should be licensed to institute such a service.

page 1897

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1897

QUESTION

TRAVEL BENEFITS

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Transport aware that a large number of clubs and organisations throughout Australia are offering travel benefits to their members? Has he obtained legal opinion on any or all of these matters? In particular, is he investigating the Australian Leisure Club, which is owned by major insurance and oil company interests, and the Newcastle Leisure Club, both of which are offering travel benefits to their members for travel on the Government’s airline, Qantas Airways Ltd, or the Victorian Young Liberals Travel Grant Scheme? Have these organisations or their travel agents received requests for information similar to those received by ACTU Jetset Travel Service Pty Ltd? If so, when?

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

– When notification of some travel grant arrangement comes to my Department, particularly if there are complaints about that travel grant, inquiries are pursued. I should say that several inquiries have been made by the Department. In fact, police officers have visited- I use the term ‘visited’ advisedly- in totally similar circumstances to the visit to ACTU Jetset headquarters on Saturday morning, six other organisations and lodged a letter of request for information to seek to ascertain the validity of the travel grant or whatever was proposed by that organisation under Air Navigation Regulation 106a. Information can be made available on these matters if honourable members want it.

In respect of the specific matters raised by the honourable member, I will have to look at what has been done. The one he mentioned which is of interest to me is the matter of the Victorian Young Liberals Travel Grant Scheme. That has been notified to my Department and I understand that some investigation is under way in that respect. I make the point that a number of these travel grants can be quite legitimate. Indeed, there is no reason why clubs should not be able to make available legitimate travel grants. The matter comes under question only when the source of those travel grants is unknown. In relation to the ACTU Jetset question, the fact is that Mr Leibler, who I think is the managing director of that organisation, has not responded to my letter of 25 September requesting information in respect of these travel grants. There have been allegations by the Australian Federation of Travel Agents -

Mr Young:

-Was it 25 or 2 1 September?

Mr NIXON:

– I will check the date afterwards and let the honourable member know. In respect of the ACTU Jetset operation, a number of allegations have been made and the Australian Federation of Travel Agents- AFTA- has complained to me that it believes there are kickbacks coming from foreign airlines to ACTU Jetset. I find it difficult to comprehend or believe that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions would involve himself in a kickback arrangement with foreign owned airlines. If he did it would be illegal because that foreign airline or its government would have a bilateral agreement with us to provide an air fare at a certain level. If a cheaper fare can be arrived at it ought not to be available just to a selected few who might secure a ticket through ACTU Jetset; it ought to be made available to 14 million Australians.

page 1897

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the recent passage of legislation by the United States Congress which would have adverse consequences for the Australian beef industry? What action does the Government propose to take in this matter?

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

-The Government has noted the passage of this legislation. I think it is worth noting that the Government and my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, have been in touch with the United States Administration constantly on this matter for several months, as has the Minister for Primary Industry. I believe that in the short term, notwithstanding this legislation, the outlook for the Australian meat industry is a very optimistic one and better than it has been for many years. Nothing I say will destroy that situation. But in the medium to longer term the legislation has potentiality for damaging Australia’s trade in a serious and grievous fashion. It is a trade in which Australia is competent and efficient. It ought to be able to grow and expand over time as markets grow and expand. The possibilities are that the legislation would materially stand in the way of that growth.

Against that background, I have today written to the President on this matter. My colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, will be leaving for the United States this evening for urgent discussions with the United States Administration. Quite obviously, the matter could be resolved to our complete satisfaction if the presidential right of veto were exercised in this instance.

page 1898

QUESTION

ACTU JETSET TRAVEL SERVICES PTY LTD

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Transport: Why was it necessary for an enforcement officer of the Department of Transport and Commonwealth Police to visit the offices of ACTU Jetset Travel Service Pty Ltd on a Saturday morning when ACTU Jetset had made no secret of its operations and when other more normal and responsible avenues of obtaining information are readily available? What persons associated with ACTU Jetset were present when the raid took place? What information and papers were obtained as result of this raid?

Mr NIXON:
LP

-I know that the honourable member for Newcastle likes to join others in the use of this great word ‘raid’. I read one leading article that said ‘Nixon does a Murphy’. What a raid- with one policeman and one civilian! No doors were bashed down, no documents were seized, no safes were opened and no papers were taken away. Yet they call it a raid! There is no doubt about the imagination of some people. In my letter to Mr Leibler on 2 1 September- I point out to the honourable member for Port Adelaide that it was 2 1 September- I said:

I refer to your letter of 5 July 1 978 concerning your participation in a joint venture with the ACTU.

Having now had the opportunity to examine more closely the proposed ACTU/Jetset Travel Scheme I feel obliged to inform you that I have strong reservations concerning this Scheme. In particular I believe the arrangements to be highly discriminatory as they would appear to be available only to certain consumers and retailers and involve unnecessary restriction of passenger choice of airline.

The Government is loath to allow any development within the marketplace of a protective or privileged nature. This Government’s recent initiatives with regard to international aviation policy, as it affects the travel industry, are aimed at obtaining the lowest cost fares for travellers consistent with the preservation of healthy competition within the Australian travel industry. I do not believe that the ACTU/Jetset proposal is in harmony with this policy.

The response to that letter said that Mr Leibler was away and would reply to my letter within the week. Actually, no reply has since been received from Mr Leibler. So consultations were held between my Department and the AttorneyGeneral’s Department following further representations received at that time by Australian Federation of Travel Agents Ltd, of which Jetset is a member, in the form of a bitter complaint that no action was being seen to be taken against a discriminatory practice of kick-backs by the ACTU Jetset scheme. The advice from the Attorney-General’s Department was that the matter warranted further investigation. The advice on how that investigation should be conducted was also given, namely that it was completely proper and consistent with previous practice that the police officer who served the notice should serve ACTU Jetset with a list of questions to be answered in respect of these kick-back and discriminatory practices that were proposed.

That is exactly what occurred on Saturday morning. These people went inside and asked the girl whether anybody in a responsible position was there to talk to. No one was there. So they left the piece of paper with the questions on it to be answered. I am delighted to know that Mr Hawke is prepared to tell us all about the matter. He has made no secret of the fact that he is prepared to tell us all about it. An arrangement was made for these people to return yesterday at 2 o’clock, but we received a call from, I think, a Mr Grant, solicitor to Mr Leibler, asking that that visit be postponed until about the same time, 2 o’clock, on Wednesday. So it is now proposed that the visit will take place on Wednesday at 2 o’clock. Doubtless, on Mr Hawke ‘s word, the information will be given to us.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Who leaked the story to television- your Department, the Commonwealth Police or the Attorney-General?

page 1898

QUESTION

ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. What defence associations does Australia have with the Association of South East Asian Nations? Will closer relations continue between Australia and those nations? Will the Government dissociate itself from recent public insults and attacks by leftwingers against members of ASEAN?

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

– For some time it has been known that an organisation that calls itself the Congress for International Co-operation and Disarmament has seemed to be the friend and associate of those who are tinged from a bright shade of crimson to a brighter shade of pink. Through the days of intervention in various peace movements, this Parliament and this country have unfortunately had the politics of the left intruded so that many of those who validly base their attitudes on quite good intentions have been misled into believing that the causes that this organisation espouses deserve universal support. Let me assure this House that the Associaton of South East Asian Nations is a very constructive international organisation which has contributed enormously towards not only political stability but also economic progress in South East Asia. I regard it as quite extraordinary that so many members of the Labor Party have signed their names to the advertisement to which the honourable member’s question refers, particularly in view of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition on his return from what I understand was his first visit to Asia not so long ago. He told us that we needed to be more concerned about that area of the world. This Government is concerned about ASEAN. We see ASEAN as being a constructive and forward-linking grouping of nations, all intent on pursuing measures of self help and on attempting to establish their own role in a community which is quite obviously plagued by economic problems and problems of other dimensions which quite often would be beyond the resources of developing countries if forced to face them on their own.

In terms of Australia’s defence associations with members of ASEAN, it is true that we provide a range of assistance not only in the defence spectrum, which is more in the ambit of my colleague the Minister for Defence, but also in the aid area. An enormous amount is done for countries in this region. Indeed, this Government has concentrated a significant proportion of its aid programs- although we are maintaining a breadth of assistance to other countries- to countries which are members of ASEAN. In the defence sense, those associations that have been continued with ASEAN countries are deliberately intended to assist in the development of measures of self reliance. Indeed, I believe that throughout the days when the Whitlam Government was in office no significant change was made to the defence arrangements which are now being criticised by members of the Australian Labor Party and by the Congress for International Co-operation and Disarmament. It is important that members of the Australian public turn towards the real motives of this organisation and those who espouse this sort of cause and do not accept what seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to belittle members of the ASEAN group and Australia’s very positive assistance towards those countries.

page 1899

QUESTION

ACTU JETSET TRAVEL SERVICES PTY LTD

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Transport: What was the legal opinion given to him by the Attorney-General which led to his order for the extraordinary raid on the premises of ACTU Jetset Travel Services Pty Ltd on 14 October? Will the Minister table the full text of that opinion?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– The legal opinion came from the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth to my Department. I am advised that it would be totally improper for me to table that opinion of the Solicitor-General because it carries information about the very grounds on which action ought to take place. I can offer no further help to the honourable member on that point.

page 1899

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Trade and Resources confirm that the United States House of Representives failed to pass before the adjournment of the present Congress legislation dealing with sugar which would have enabled the United States to participate fully in the International Sugar Agreement? What are the implications of this for the world sugar industry and the International Sugar Agreement? In particular, what are the implications for the Australian sugar industry, which is becoming very concerned about having to accept the disciplines of the Agreement while being denied its projected benefits?

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

– I am very concerned and disappointed that the United States of America has not passed the necessary legislation to enable it to operate as a full member of the International Sugar Agreement. I am very disappointed because, for the first time, the United States played a major role in the negotiations which created the International Sugar Agreement last year and also was responsible for the idea of providing a stocks financing fund, which is an innovation towards establishing a stabilised marketing scheme. However, during the past 24 hours I have had officers of my Department in touch with officials in America. They are equally concerned that the legislation has not been passed. The American Administration is fully conscious of the serious implications of not passing this legislation, particularly the implications for the developing countries around the world. I believe that the American Administration is undertaking an urgent review to see what action might possibly be taken.

I point out that failure of the United States to pass this legislation, whilst it has implications, does not stop the International Sugar Agreement from continuing. The only facet of the Agreement that will not be able to be fulfilled as soon as possible is the stocks financing fund. We hope that America will pass next year the legislation which will enable that section of the ISA to come into operation. I think it is fair to say that since countries have been exercising on themselves a discipline relating to exports of sugar the level of sugar prices has been above the level which would have been operating had there been no International Sugar Agreement. I think it would be wrong for sugar producing countries to panic because the Americans have not passed the relevant legislation.

It is important that this Agreement should work. It is in the long term interest of the sugar producing countries around the world. I hope that all members of the ISA will hold firm and will keep pressure on the United States to see that it passes the legislation next year so that the Agreement can continue its effectiveness. Already the international market has been responding to the ISA and, unless the Americans’ not passing the appropriate legislation has any major psychological effect, I do not see any detrimental consequences. So it is important that nobody breaks away and starts exporting ad lib because the Americans have not passed the legislation.

page 1900

QUESTION

NAVAL SONAR EQUIPMENT

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Defence whether a decision has been taken not to continue with the installation of Australiandeveloped sonar equipment on FFG frigates being constructed for the Australian Navy. Has an American system, SQSS6, been chosen to replace the Australian-developed system? Is the United States system significantly inferior to the Australian system and not attuned to operating conditions in Australian waters? Has this replacement been brought about by lack of financial support and staff for the Australian operation which have caused delays in development?

Mr Bourchier:

– It is a funny old question.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I know that the honourable member is not interested in Australian products. He would rather buy from the Americans. That may be the idea of the honourable member for Bendigo; it is not mine.

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

– May I explain to my honourable friend that during the early days of experimentation we did experience difficulty with the Australian system. Following those difficulties and the fact that it appeared at the time that it would not be possible to secure an appropriate resolution of them, the decision was taken, albeit reluctantly, to install the American system. I put it to my honourable friend that, faced with the facts as they were, there was simply no alternative; but I am happy to be able to report to him and to the House that since that decision was taken there have been encouraging improvements with the experiments with the Australian system and it would be available for the follow-on destroyers.

page 1900

QUESTION

SOUTH PACIFIC CONFERENCE

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the leader of a delegation to the South Pacific Conference in Noumea last week posed the following question:

How much longer are we the island countries, to allow ourselves to be treated in this insulting and paternalistic way by some of our partners?

Is he further aware that that statement was endorsed by a number of other delegations to the Conference? Will the Prime Minister advise whether Australia is concerned to play any part in the development of the South Pacific countries and, if so, what role it will play? Is the Government concerned to reinstate Australia’s position in the South Pacific to ensure that all states and territories are aware of our commitment to the Canberra Agreement and our desire to join in the economic, social, community and cultural development of the peoples of the South Pacific?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I had noted the comments that were made at that time. I can only say that they were completely and utterly out of tune with the comments that have come to the Foreign Minister and myself through the South Pacific Forum. That, of course, is the forum in which the Pacific countries, including New Zealand and Australia, meet but in which the continental powers, Britain and France, do not take part. In that forum, where Australia has shown a very great deal of interest, as we have also in the South Pacific Conference, there has never been the slightest suggestion that Australia is not interested and not concerned. Indeed, on the contrary, many countries of the South Pacific have over the last year or so turned to Australiasometimes for advice, sometimes for assistance, certainly for consultation on a number of matters- in a way which three or four years ago they would not have dreamt of doing. One only has to look at our increasing involvement; for instance, the $60m three-year aid program, which represented a significant increase. Subject to correction, I would believe it represented the greatest increase in Australia’s foreign aid. That again is an initiative that this Government has taken because we recognise in many ways the lack of resources that many of the small nation states of the Pacific suffer, and we recognise that some particular assistance needs to be provided to them. Both Australia and New Zealand are working in the closest harmony, goodwill and cooperation to achieve objectives that will ensure the development and continued peaceful nature of the Pacific generally.

Of course, we have done other things that are regarded as being of importance. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting which was held in Sydney took a number of decisions that were directed specifically to assisting small states. One of the problems of small states is representation in major international organisations and trade organisations, including the United Nations itself. Another problem is getting information on what is happening in the world environment. One of the initiatives that came out of that regional meeting was a special paper by the Commonwealth Secretariat, which will be discussed at future meetings, about the problems of small states and what the Commonwealth as a whole can do to assist in this area. At that time we also made a decision to send an investment team round the island states. I hope that that decision shortly will be put into practice. At the last Forum meeting Australia offered to establish a trade commission, not to sell our exports which is the normal purpose of a trade commission but to assist the Pacific island countries to sell their goods in Australia and to help to identify markets in Australia to assist their economies.

I reject very firmly the suggestion that Australia is not interested and has not played a constructive, useful, vigorous and active role in the Pacific over the last two or three years under the guidance of my colleague the Foreign Minister. My attendance and the Foreign Minister’s attendance at Pacific Forum meetings is further evidence of that. I think the particular incident mentioned is unfortunate. My colleague the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs led this delegation. It ought to be noted that at these meetings it is not the normal practice for heads of government to be in attendance. There was no foreknowledge that the particular matters were to be raised or put on the agenda. That was the only reason why it was necessary for my colleague to refer to Canberra for advice on both of those matters. Both of the matters raised in fact were supported by Australia. Again, if we had had advice that they were to be on the agenda or might come up for discussion there is no doubt that the Minister would have been briefed and fully equipped to make decisions on the spot in relation to them. In relation to future meetings we will be wanting to consult with the Secretariat to try to make sure that the matters to be raised in discussions are advised to us before the meetings begin instead of during the course of the meetings. The importance of the Pacific is very real and our cooperation and support for the Pacific island states is also important and very real, and it will remain so.

page 1901

QUESTION

ECONOMIC POLICIES

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. By way of preface, I remind the Prime Minister of the enthusiasm shown by Government spokesmen in the past to quote extensively and approvingly at Question Time from the reports of the economist Philip Shrapnel in support of the Government’s economic policies. I ask: Has the Prime Minister seen Shrapnel’s October economic outlook? Is he aware that it is critical of the Government for adhering to the very conservative advice of some of its advisers and the economic consequences of that advice? Is he also aware that Ridge’s business magazine and the journal of the Australian Industries Development Association- two sources generally regarded as reflecting careful, if not conservative, economic views- have both called on the Government recently for some moderate and careful expansion of the economy? Will the Government heed and respond to this sound advice before the Government causes more avoidable social and economic devastation?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-This question involves a matter which I believe is quite misconceived in the current economic debate, not just in Australia but in other countries in addition. There is always pressure to stimulate an economy by traditional Keynesian economics while inflation is still higher than it should be and while interest rates are still higher than one would want for the normal and proper operations of an economy. In recent times we have seen Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries which had been making considerable advance in the fight against inflation relax their policy in the belief that they could undertake a government stimulus, which has resulted in inflation and interest rates rising again with the very real prospect of unemployment rising in their train. A number of countries in Europe are in precisely that position.

I believe it is a very real concern that major industrial countries are not pursuing the fight against inflation with greater vigour. Governments may sometimes be able to spend a few hundred million dollars, or, in the case of the Leader of the Opposition, a few thousand million dollars, in order to stimulate the economy of a country and think that that is a good thing and may have a beneficial result. But it needs to be understood that the stimulus that will come from natural causes, from a stable economic base, from low inflation and lower interest rates, will do much more for an economy than a government induced stimulus launched before the major fight against inflation and before the ills and imbalances of the past have been completely overcome.

I think that the remarks of my colleague the Prime Minister in the United Kingdom are relevant in this regard. He lost an argument with the British Trade Union Congress about an agreement he was seeking for, I think, a five per cent wage increase throughout the course of the year. The Trade Union Congress threw that out; it would not have a bar of it. Then the British Prime Minister, I believe with great courage in his environment, made it perfectly plain that since there was no wage restraint and since the fight against inflation was of paramount importance for his Government and, in the judgment of his Government, for the people of Britain, he would therefore have to take consequential action on fiscal and monetary policy to compensate for the fact that there would be less restraint in the wages area than he and the Government of Britain had sought. The Prime Minister of Britain was saying quite plainly to the Trade Union Congress and the British people that without wage restraint there would be reduced government expenditure and a tougher monetary policy. He was drawing the link between wages, government expenditure, monetary policy and employment in very plain terms. I think it would do our colleagues on the opposite side of this Parliament no little good to read the speech of the British Prime Minister and to note his courage and honesty in terms of the economic debate.

I believe that in this economy the establishment of a stable cost base and the starting of a movement down in interest rates is enabling Australian industry to get up and compete again, something which, under Labor’s policies, it was quite unable to do. At present some importers of goods in this country are starting to complain that they cannot compete with Australian manufactured goods. I think that many people in this Parliament, in particular those on this side of the House, including my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, would applaud that as being a good thing. It has occurred in some quite labour intensive areas. Coloured television sets have gone to Hong Kong; women’s underwear to Japan and saddles, which have been manufactured in Brisbane, to Germany and Europe. Furniture made in Brisbane has been exported to Sweden, the pre-eminent furniture manufacturing country. In these areas Australian industry is getting out and producing and selling in the markets of the world. In a number of instances industries are putting on additional employees. That is the way a stimulus will come to this economy. That is why we look forward to the 1980s with a great deal of optimism and confidence- optimism and confidence which I share with the Premier of New South Wales and which I know my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition would wish to reject.

page 1902

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LEGISLATION

Mr MARTYR:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations been drawn to proposals or suggestions of change in the Government’s major industrial relations legislation?

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

– Yes. I have seen reports that the Leader of the Opposition is continuing his non-policy in industrial relations and promising to repeal all the Government’s industrial relations legislation. I hope everyone, and especially trade unionists, fully understands what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. For example, he would abolish secret postal ballots. He would deny trade unionists their fair and equal opportunity to decide who should lead them. He would remove the guaranteed right of trade unionists to vote without fear or intimidation. For its part, the Government has given trade unionists that right and it will stand by it. The Leader of the Opposition -

Mr Young:

– I take a point of order. I seek to identify the document to which Mr Street is referring so that we can find out where Mr Hayden made these remarks. Can the Minister tell us where the statements were made?

Mr Anthony:

– Why don’t you ask him yourself?

Mr Young:

– Why don’t you go back to your pigs?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I think the House ought to be ashamed of the passage of words of that kind from both sides. I hope that the use of such words will cease.

Mr Hayden:

– He is a pig farmer. Why should he be embarrassed about that, for God ‘s sake?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition does not do himself a service by making that sort of comment. In raising a point of order the honourable member for Port Adelaide is asking for identification of a document. Is the honourable gentleman asking whether the Minister is quoting from the document?

Mr Young:

– Yes, so that we can identify where the Leader of the Opposition said it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the Minister quoting from a document?

Mr STREET:

-No, Mr Speaker.

Mr Young:

– Tony, I thought that you were one bloke who wouldn’t tell lies.

Mr STREET:

-Mr Speaker, I ask for that remark to be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide will withdraw the remark that was offensive.

Mr Young:

– I withdraw the remark.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I ask that the Minister withdraw the assertions that he made. I have said nothing like it. How can you rebuke the honourable member for Port Adelaide for correcting the Minister when the Minister is thoroughly misrepresenting me? If you are not prepared to accept that, the honourable member for Port Adelaide ‘s assertion must stand.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know that I will call for the withdrawal of unparliamentary remarks; I will not call for the withdrawal of remarks which are made in argument and which may not be correct. The Minister is making a statement, the correctness of which will stand examination. I call the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations.

Mr STREET:

-Apparently the Leader of the Opposition, in his desire to repeal industrial legislation, would also repeal that legislation which gives rights of conscientious objection to union membership. I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition or the Labor Party would do for the 1 50-odd people who have secured certificates of conscientious objection, having satisfied the Industrial Registrar that their objections are genuine. We recognise the right of people to have such an objection. It is clear that the Labor Party would ignore it or trample on it. As part of our overall plan to improve the industrial institutional framework in Australia, we have also established the Industrial Relations Bureau. It is clear from the reported statements that the Labor Party would prefer a return to the law of the jungle where might is right and industrial muscle prevails instead of the rights of individuals. This Government has acted positively at all times to protect the rights of individuals and to improve the institutional framework within which industrial relations are conducted. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to pull down that structure, the community and trade unionists especially will judge him accordingly; and he would be condemned for it.

page 1903

QUESTION

SOUTH PACIFIC CONFERENCE

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is supplementary to that question asked by his colleague the honourable member for McMillan which related to the South Pacific Conference and the conduct of our delegate at that conference. Is the Prime Minister aware that the first matter which was the subject of remarks that we were acting in an insulting and paternalistic way related to a very formal request by Tuvalu seeking membership of the South Pacific Conference? On a subsequent day when there was a resolution dealing with commercial air services our delegate asked that a paragraph be withdrawn from the resolution and when it was so done he refused to support the resolution. Accordingly, did the Fijian Minister for Justice not appeal to Australia ‘to send delegates who are prepared to take decisions within the ambit of the Conference’? I ask: Why is it that the delegates sent had no power to make decisions? Is it not a fact that our relations in the South Pacific are an index of our foreign policy generally?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I will read out the note that I have here in relation to this particular point because I think it states the matter quite plainly. Accession of any state, in this case Tuvalu, to the Canberra agreement, affects Australia’s treaty relationships and, therefore, is a matter for decision by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and that is obvious. Our delegation, in referring the matter to Canberra, therefore, acted quite properly. We had no indication that this matter would be raised at the Conference. Treaty accession questions are not usually raised at the Conference.

That is the advice given to me. The implication from that clearly is that treaty accession questions have usually been settled outside the Conference itself; but apparently on this occasion they were settled in the Conference. I agree that if matters were coming forward about which we had not been advised earlier we should have been close enough to the secretariat of the Conference to make sure that we had advance knowledge. I am quite certain that departments will be keeping in as close touch as possible to make sure that this kind of thing does not occur again. If the Minister had been advised that these matters were coming forward at the Conference then clearly he would have been briefed in relation to them and the decisions would have been made on the spot.

I would hope that the Opposition would not seek to establish for any Australian Minister, now or in the future, the requirement that if he is at an international conference and a matter arises on which he is not fully advised he should then make a decision binding Australia without first getting advice. I think that if any Minister did that at an international conference he could well lead this country into a very difficult and serious situation. I would hope that any Minister, no matter what the conference, in those circumstances would seek advice- as did the Minister on this occasion- to make sure that the matter was dealt with properly in the interests of the conference and in Australia’s own long-term interests.

I really do think that too much is being made of the point that a Minister at a conference sought advice in the course of that conference. If the honourable gentleman wishes to try to sustain the point of view that we ought to have known this information beforehand, I am prepared to say that I think officials should have been close enough in their contact with each other to have allowed the Minister to be advised before he went. Since that was not so, he took the only course that was sensibly and responsibly open to him. He sought advice and then Australia supported both resolutions after the advice had been sought. I cannot really see that there is a great point to be made out of it. I am quite certain that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows and is prepared to pay recognition for the worth of Australia’s work in the Pacific over recent years.

page 1904

QUESTION

UNITED STATES BEEF IMPORT LEGISLATION

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Trade and Resources, concerns the counter-cyclical beef import legislation passed last week by the United States Congress. Has the Minister seen reports suggesting that Australia should engage in a trade war with the United States if this legislation is signed by President Carter? How would Australia emerge from such a skirmish?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-As the Prime Minister pointed out, we are extremely concerned about the counter-cyclical legislation, or the Poage Bill, that has recently been passed through Congress and we have been making representations to the Administration that the President exercise his veto or at least exercise a pocket veto, if not a complete veto, so that this law does not come into effect. The serious consequence of this is that it could have an effect on the industry when our cattle population builds up in the 1980s at the same time as the American cattle population is building up. We would then feel the full impact of the legislation. The other matter of concern is that the United States has been working closely with Australia in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, where we are both pressing for greater liberalisation of trade, particularly in animal products. It would seem quite counter to the American attitude to go ahead and exercise this legislation.

But to talk in terms of a trade war with the United States really is foolish. Obviously such remarks are very shallow. They gave me the impression of being a desperate attempt to get a headline rather than the result of any deep thought as to the consequences.

The United States is an extremely important trading partner. As far as the beef industry is concerned we have been completely dependent upon the United States market for a number of years because it takes the great bulk of our exports of beef. This legislation will not have any serious effect on our exports in the immediate future. But to talk now in terms of a trade war when retaliation is possible would be to do ourselves harm at a time when we would not be suffering any damage from this legislation. The United States is an immensely powerful country. It is a big trading partner. It is our most important source of imports. To get into holts with the United States would have very serious repercussions. It is not the sort of attitude that we like to take to trade. If there are problems, let us sit down and try to talk them out. But to threaten a country the size of the United States, a country upon which we have been heavily dependent for the sale of our meat, would be just foolishness.

page 1904

NAVAL SONAR EQUIPMENT

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to add to the answer I gave to the honourable member for Corio. Consideration is currently being given to a production decision relating to the Mulloka sonar system. This follows the successful trials in HMAS Yarra. That system could in all probability be installed in the existing destroyer escorts. It only remains for me to say to the honourable gentleman that at no time has there been any evidence placed before me that the Mulloka sonar system has suffered in any way because of the lack of financial support.

page 1904

VISIT TO ACTU JETSET OFFICES

Mr NIXON:
LP

– With your indulgence, Mr Speaker I would like to add to an answer I gave the honourable member for Newcastle. The honourable member asked why television and radio personnel were notified of and present at the visit of one police officer and one civilian at the office of ACTU Jetset Travel Service Pty Ltd on Saturday. I am able to inform him that no radio or television personnel were present. In fact, the Press was not informed until after the visit had taken place.

page 1905

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-With your indulgence, Mr Speaker I would also like to add to an answer.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You are the third.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I thought the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like the information. In regard to the second matter which was raised relating to civil aviation it is my understanding from a note I now have before me- it may be incomplete but if what I say is not right I will advise the honourable gentlemanthat we were aware that that matter was on the agenda but it was also the day on which my colleague the Minister for Transport was making a major statement on air fares and air transport policy. It was for that reason that that matter was referred to Canberra to see whether, against the background of that policy statement, there were any matters that needed modification relative to the advice that was available to our delegation.

page 1905

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1942 I present the annual return of persons granted Australian citizenship for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1905

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973 I present the annual report of the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1977. An interim report for 1 976-77 was presented on 30 May 1 978.

page 1905

PATENT, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS OFFICE

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Patent, Trade marks and Designs Office for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1905

NORFOLK ISLAND

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report on Norfolk Island for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1905

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

-At Question Time the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) attributed a number of assertions to me. All of those assertions, with the exception of one, are untrue. I did say that a Labor government would abolish the Indusrial Relations Bureau. I said that it had been created only as sop to the Prime Minister’s confrontationist style, that it had not worked and that it would not work. I did not say that we would repeal conscientious provisions in relevant industrial legislation but rather that we would amend them so that there would be clear guidelines, and so that the star chamber technique which applies at the moment would be eliminated. I made no reference at all to the other matters he raised. I invite him to look at a copy of the speech I delivered yesterday. It is available. I did not even mention the subject of secret ballots. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the relevant sections of my speech which relate to industrial matters so that there can be no doubt about the accuracy of what I am saying.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Government Supporters- No

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Is the Government frightened now? Can we anticipate that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will now apologise for misleading the House in misrepresenting me -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition is not raising a point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

-1-. . . or is he seeking to adhere to the same standards as have been established by his colleagues?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He persists in speaking when he does not have the call from the Chair and when there is no Standing Order to justify his speaking. I ask him to observe the Standing Orders.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I seek leave to make a personal explanation on the grounds that I have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I refer to an article published in the Bulletin of 17 October which purports to be a review of a play by Roger Hall called Glidetime or Flextime. The article makes this comment:

Fraser ‘s sudden concern with flextime was precipitated in the House by Clyde Cameron (Lab. SA) who had telephoned the central offices of three departments one Friday afternoon and had been unable to rouse even a switchboard operator. The Public Service Board later reported that Cameron must have been ringing the wrong numbers or alternatively had telephoned ‘after hours.’ On opening night, many public servants in the audience also found it hilariously funny to recognise their associates on stage- if not themselves.

It is not true that I telephoned the wrong numbers. I did not. I am not as stupid as that. It is not true that I phoned after hours. I would not be so stupid as to do that. If the Public Service Board wishes to judge other people by its own standards that is its business. The fact is that I phoned early on a Friday afternoon. I kept phoning because I was determined to keep an account of how long I had continuously phoned before the switchboard answered. After more than an hour the switchboard answered. It was the switchboard of the Public Service Board. I identified myself to the young lady concerned who will be able to verify this if she chooses to be truthful. I told her that I wanted to speak with a certain officer. I gave his name to her. She said that he was not there but that she would give me his telephone number. I then phoned that number but the officer had flexed off for the afternoon.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– At the weekend the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a broadcast in which he alluded to a personal letter which I had written to Mr Yunupingu, the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. He claimed that I had implied that members of the Labor Party have been engaged in a web of intrigue to undermine Mr Yunupingu and the Northern Land Council. There is no substance in that assertion by the Prime Minister. There is no such implication in my letter. I explained quite accurately last Thursday- I do so again- my attitude to that matter. In my view there are far more people on the other side of the House who have involved themselves in intrigue and in leaning on Mr Yunupingu and the Northern Land Council and in attempting to undermine its authority. The people on the Labor side who would put other issues ahead of Aboriginal rights are not to my knowledge members of this Parliament, members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly or members of the staffs of those people.

page 1906

AUSTRALIAN SERVICES CANTEENS ORGANISATION

Report and Ministerial Statement

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the inquiry conducted by Sir Basil Osborne, C.B.E., on the Australian Services Canteens Organisation. I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

- Sir Basil Osborne, a retired businessman and former Lord Mayor of Hobart, was commissioned in July 1975 by the then Minister for Defence to review the canteen requirements for the Defence Force. It was an attempt to find a solution to the various financial problems facing the Australian Services Canteens Organisation, at that time. His report, which I have tabled today, was completed early in 1976. It was subjected to close examination within ASCO, the Services, and the Department of Defence. The report reflected the efforts given by Sir Basil and seemed to reflect the close contact he made with the serving members. Many but not all of his proposals were attractive to the Defence Force but as a general scheme it was not acceptable, particularly against the background of economic restraint.

Further studies have been undertaken and these have had regard to the recommendations of Sir Basil. As has been announced earlier this year, it has been decided in principle that ASCO should be run down and ultimately closed. The Government is grateful for the time and effort given by Sir Basil in his attempts to find the solution to a most difficult problem.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-by leave-There has been more activity on the Australian Services Canteens Organisation over the last six to eight months, since the Government made a statement without any backup statements on future canteen services or the future of the employees in the organisation, than on any other matter of similar consequence. Most members of the Parliament have had a considerable amount of correspondence on this matter. The report of Sir Basil Osborne has been requested on a number of occasions- My understanding is that the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), at least on one occasion, indicated to a delegation that it was not available because it had been presented to a previous government. The date on the report would indicate that that is not correct. A second report, on Sir Basil Osborne’s recommendations and prepared by the Australian Services Canteens Organisation Council, also has not been made available to the House.

The Government has made a decision to reject the recommendations of Sir Basil Osborne which were largely to continue a central canteen organisation operated basically by civilians with a component of Service personnel so that those service personnel would have experience for the operation of canteen services in wartime. The question remains of the type of canteen facilities that the Government intends to make available to the Services. This statement adds nothing to the vagary of earlier Government statements. It appears only to add to the confusion and the problems which confront persons who are employed in ASCO, especially civilian employees, in areas where alternative employment does not exist or is not readily available. The Government has indicated on at least one occasion that it will seek to employ those civilian employees where practical but in most cases the employees of the organisation will be replaced by Service personnel. When the Government gets around to announcing the form of organisation which it will adopt it will almost certainly be a Service organisation. Those persons who are displaced because of the change of organisation will have little or no opportunity for alternative employment. I have a table of the locations of members of the organisation and the unions to which they belong. It broadly delineates the types of activity in which the civilian personnel are involved on a full time, part time and casual basis. I ask leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr SCHOLES:

– Basically, there are approximately 1,000 civilian employees in the organisation, of whom 480-odd are permanent employees, the remainder being part-time or casual employees. A large number of them are located in remote areas where no alternative employment and no other source of income are available. Part-time jobs for females, such as clerical work and similar forms of employment, just do not exist in the remote areas where some military establishments are located.

The provision of canteen services comes under the conditions of service of servicemen and it is an entitlement which they have. I do not doubt that the Government will provide in future a form of canteen services. However, it should have been possible for the Government to have given this report to the Parliament a year ago before announcing its decisions. It should also have been possible for the Parliament to see the responses of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation to the criticisms which were levelled in Sir Basil Osborne’s report, as well as the modifications to its operation which are suggested in that report. I think it is also not unreasonable to expect that when the Government takes a decision to wind up an organisation and to replace it by another form of organisation the Government ought to be able to tell the Parliament and the people involved in employment in that area what sort of organisation and what opportunities will be available to them.

It is over six months since the Government announced its decision to wind up this organisation. It has just tabled a report which was given to it in

January 1976. The responses to that report are not available. They are referred to vaguely in the text but I do not think it is good enough for some thousand employees of ASCO to be left hanging at the end of an unbaited hook which the Government has set- they may be employed and they may not. There has been no indication from the Government of what its intentions are, if in fact it knows. I think the Government does not know what type of organisation it intends to use to replace the present organisation.

The Opposition is glad to see this report after some 2V4 years of secrecy. There is nothing in it that ought to be secret. I do not think there is anything in the responses of ASCO that ought to be secret. I hope that one day the Government will make up its mind about what is in fact intended for these services and especially about the future of the employees who will be displaced without prospects of jobs in the areas in which they are located.

page 1908

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 [No. 2].

Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1978 [No.2].

Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1 978.

Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1978.

Health Insurance Levy Bill 1978.

page 1908

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received letters from both the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, 1 have selected one matter, that is, that which is proposed by the honourable member for Port Adelaide, namely:

The damage to Australia’s industrial relations caused by the Government’s unnecessary and discriminatory raid on ACTU Jetset.

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 YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– Yesterday the top industrial relations body, the National Labour Consultative Council, was abandoned as a result of the storm trooper mentality of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) towards trade unions. On Saturday last this Minister, unbeknown to many of his senior colleagues, embarked upon a most amazing sequence of events. He personally directed a member of his Department, together with the Commonwealth Police, to raid a travel agency with which the Australian Council of Trade Unions is associated. He did this, he says, on the basis of advice he received from the SolicitorGeneral. That advice is known only to him. He refuses to make that advice available to us. It is even more amazing because the Minister told us at Question Time that he had only general information about the operations of ACTU Jetset Travel Services Pty Ltd. One wonders as to the information given to the Solicitor-General upon which he gave his opinion. In fact, as the newspapers have pointed out, why on earth the Solicitor-General was used to give the opinion necessary for the Minister to act remains unknown to all of us.

One further incident occurred this afternoon at Question Time to which we take very strong objection. The Minister for Transport tried to back up the actions he took on Saturday morning by suggesting in this Parliament that perhaps the ACTU- in fact, he personally named the President of the ACTU, Mr Hawke, who is one of the most respected public figures in this country was associated with receiving funds from overseas with which to boost his own travel agency. That is the most repugnant use to which this Parliament can be put. Similar slurs were used last week by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). They were used today by the Minister for Transport. They were used again today by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in regard to matters which were never mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden).

This action taken by the Minister, which was a blatantly political as it was discriminatory, led to yesterday’s breakdown of the NLCC. The Minister responsible for industrial relations, who in turn is responsible for the NLCC, was not even advised of the action taken on Saturday. One would have thought that in view of the obvious response to this action the Minister for Transport would have told the Minister responsible for industrial relations that this action was to be taken. But the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations was not informed, nor were the participants at yesterday’s meeting. It is not just trade unions which attend the NLCC. Employer representatives, George Polites, Ray Kirby, Sir Samuel Burston and others attend, as well as Bob Hawke, John Ducker, Cliff Dolan. The

ACTU took action with the full backing of other peak councils such as the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations and the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations. The members of these organisations were given no prior word of the actions of the Minister for Transport last Saturday.

What did the newspapers have to say? One newspaper reported:

The lengths to which the Federal Government will go to prevent consumers from enjoying the benefits of lower travel costs have been well illustrated by the absurdly melodramatic raid on the Melbourne offices of the ACTU Jetset Travel Service.

This raid is just one more example of this Government’s confrontationist approach to industrial relations. It illustrates the contempt that this Government holds for the representatives of wage and salary earners. The raid was completely absurd. The Sydney Morning Herald pointed out:

It looked as though it had been copied straight from Kojak or The Untouchables.

The slapstick humour of this situation is overshadowed by its sinister aspects.

Why did the Government not ask the travel service to make the documents available? The Minister is well aware that the ACTU Leisure Club has been in existence for four years and has been making travel grants to its members for all of that time. If he now considers that the scheme is illegal, why has he not taken action before? Why was the raid carried out on a Saturday morning when the Government was well aware that only a small and junior staff would be present?

Why is the Government denying cheaper international air fares and holiday benefits to nearly half the population of Australia? The Minister says that he is upset by the scheme operated by ACTU Jetset because it discriminates against consumers. As has been pointed out by the Managing Director of ACTU Jetset, no fewer than six million people, who are members of trade unions and other associations and their families, have these services available to them. That is some sort of discrimination when the service is available to six million people.

Why is the Government treating a respectable trade union organisation operating a major travel service as though it was composed of desperate criminals? The Minister is well aware that a large number of clubs and organisations throughout Australia are offering travel benefits to their members. Why have these organisations not received similar requests for information.

The answer is simple: The Government is trying to cover up its bumbling ineptitude. In this case the Minister is attempting to portray a travel scheme offering cheaper international air fares and holiday benefits to nearly half of the population of Australia as providing a financial kickback for a favoured few, to use the Minister’s own comments in a Press statement.

He seeks to cover up the fact that the so-called new aviation policy announced last week is a sham. It offers cheaper air fares which may or may not be at stated price levels, which may or may not be introduced at some unknown time next year and which only Qantas and British Airways will be allowed to operate.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that this raid took place at a time when the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations announced a record unemployment figure and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) announced a review of the operations of the Prices Justification Tribunal. This Government is not only attempting to cover up its contempt for the travelling public; it is also seeking to camouflage its pathetic approach to the unemployment problem. What better scapegoat than the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Whenever this Government is in trouble it seeks to blame the trade unions. It insists on wielding the big stick. It viciously attacks the level of real wages and then refuses to engage in price control. It implements regressive taxation policies and then amends the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to ferment industrial unrest and division in the community. We have the illustrations of the Industrial Relations Bureau, the amendments to the Trade Practices Act and the Commonwealth Employee (Employment Provisions) Act. All matters which are concerned at directly affecting the lives of wage and salary earners.

The Government even attacks the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for granting excessive wage increases- increases which fail to keep pace with the cost of living. Now it will abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal in the name of free enterprise and at the same time allow a cartel of travel agents and international airlines to fleece the travelling public. The Government has even decided to tax the lump sum payments which the traveller uses to pay for these airline flights.

Yesterday on the agenda for a meeting of the National Labour Consultative Council were some matters which one would have thought were far more important than a decision to raid the office of the ACTU Jetset. Let us look at some of the agenda items.

They are the effect of new technologies, employment and unemployment, discrimination in employment and the tripartite committee on issues affecting women in the work force. I know that they are matters not of great concern to the Minister for Transport, who is sitting at the table, but they should be of far greater significance to the Ministry than they are to the Minister for Transport. They should be matters that take priority over raids on ACTU Jetset. The fact that the meeting of the NLCC would break down would have been well known to the Minister for Transport. But this illustrates the change in direction of labour relations with this Government. It is significant that just two or three weeks ago the Government set up a committee of six Ministers around the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations because a certain segment of the Cabinet, not of insignificant influence on its decisions, including all the senior Ministers of the National Country Party, believes that on every single question that affects the work force this Government has to be tough with the trade unions. So we had the raid on the office of ACTU Jetset, directed by the Minister for Transport.

The employer representatives at the NLCC were appalled at the action taken by the Government on Saturday that led to the breakdown of their meeting with the unions. In spite of its protest about the raid the ACTU used common sense and sat down with employers and government representatives to decide upon a date for the next meeting of the NLCC. The unions in this case are being far more sensible than this Government has ever demonstrated it is capable of being.

On Saturday the Minister for Transport used non-political people for blatant political purposes. This Government has shown that it is prepared to do anything to reach office and it has continued to display an even greater immoral stance to hold on to that power. The Press statement put out by the Minister for Transport states on page 2:

Mr Nixon said it appeared at this stage that the company’s scheme provided a financial kick-back for the favoured few who qualified for membership of ACTU Jetset Travel Service Pty Limited.

It is my concern to ensure the cost of these kick-backs is not borne by the rest of the travelling public’.

I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, not in your capacity as a private member but rather in your capacity as Deputy Speaker, to fancy any member of the National Country Party, especially a senior Minister, complaining about kick-backs and perks. Of all the political parties that have ever been established in Western democracies there would be no greater kick-back and perk party than the National Country Party of Australia. For the Minister to use those terms, which obviously he is so familiar with, is a significant indication of his mentality about these issues. Fancy a National Country Party Minister saying that! All week members of that Party are in here bleating about not enough kick-backs being given to the people they represent, yet in this case they are taking offence at the fact that there might be some legal way which is open to ACTU Jetset to make cheaper travel available for six million Australians. But the Government cannot have that. It said that it would have to send in what we are now calling ‘Nixon’s raiders’. It is absolutely extraordinary that these sorts of situations have to be reached in Australia.

Let us look at the ACTU Jetset relations with the Government. On 5 July 1978 the Minister for Transport was informed by Jetset that it was entering into a joint venture with the ACTU. I shall quote the last two paragraphs of the letter to see whether honourable members interpret it as a confrontation with the Government as far as the travel agency was concerned. The letter from Mr Leibler, the Managing Director of Jetset Tours Pty Ltd, reads:

Therefore I would appreciate the opportunity to put to you personally our viewpoint on a number of those matters currently under government discussion. My senior management and myself would be available at short notice at your convenience.

Receipt of that letter was acknowledged on 18 July. On 7 September the Minister for Transport wrote a letter indicating the Government’s desire to talk to the industry. No further action was taken until 2 1 September. I shall read the letter which was referred to by the Minister at Question Time. It reads:

Dear Mr Leibler,

I refer to your letter of 5 July, 1978 concerning your participation in a joint venture with the ACTU.

Having now had the opportunity to examine more closely the proposed ACTU/Jetset Travel Scheme, I feel obliged to inform you that I have strong reservations concerning this scheme. In particular, I believe the arrangements to be highly discriminatory -

It serves only six million people- as they would appear to be available only to certain consumers and retailers and involve unnecessary restrictions of passenger choice of airline.

The Government is loath to allow any development within the market place of a protective or privileged nature. This Government’s recent initiatives with regard to international aviation policy, as it affects the travel industry, are aimed at obtaining the lowest cost fares for travellers consistent with the preservation of healthy competition within the Australian travel industry. I do not believe that the ACTU Jetset proposal is in harmony with this policy.

I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or any honourable member who reads this letter: Where in any way at all has the Minister indicated that what those organisations are doing is illegal? He said that he did not like what they are doing, but he did not say anything about the proposal to meet with them when the joint venture was set up. Jetset had put to the Minister a proposal to hold a meeting with him as quickly as possible to discuss these matters. He did not say that he wanted information either. The letter does not contain any request to ACTU Jetset for the information which the Minister wanted so desperately last Saturday morning.

The Minister must think that the member of his Department and the Commonwealth policeman who were called upon to raid ACTU Jetset are as lacking in fortitude as he is because they went down Saturday morning and saw a young office girl. The Minister could not wait to see the manager or some other senior person in the office of ACTU Jetset. Those two officers had to go and intimidate a young office girl. She would have been pleased to be holding discussions with a Commonwealth police officer! But this matter becomes more interesting.

On 12 September in a memo from the secretary of the Airline Industry Executive Committee of Australia to members of its Steering Committee on the subject of ACTU Jetset Travel grants the following is stated:

The IATA resolution text referred to have no relevance to the question under consideration since the individual selling agents make no disbursements or rebates to the purchaser.

In every travel club offering subsidy arrangements it has been shown that the travel grant is awarded post ticket purchase and is provided directly to the ticket purchaser by the sponsoring association. This provides no basis on which to take punitive action against the agency selling air travel. . . .

It has been demonstrated clearly that this Minister has stepped right outside the parameters of his responsibility and has taken blatant political action because the ACTU Jetset organisation has the name ‘ACTU’ associated with it. The Minister for Transport, like so many other Ministers, cannot bear the standing or the influence of trade unions or their intrusion into any sphere of life in this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– One can only ask why the

Australian Labor Party has brought on this matter of public importance today. The answer is quite obvious in my view. It is that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions so badly overreacted at the National Labour Consultative Council meeting on Monday; that he used his position as the President of the ACTU to inject commercial matters of personal interest, and stormed out of the meeting- not quietly, but after having notified the Press of his intention. For those reasons, the Labor Party now believes that it must try to rescue him. It is trying to smooth over what I can only describe as the gross stupidity of the President of the ACTU. What he did was notify the Press of his intention. I quote from the Melbourne Age:

ACTU staff had warned the media they would walk out of the National Labour Consultative Council.

No attempt whatsoever was made to do otherwise than use the forum of the National Labour Consultative Council to advance Mr Hawke ‘s commercial interest as the President of the ACTU. No other explanation that he has given can satisfy that point. The fact is that Mr Hawke is the only person in Australia who has brought jeopardy to the activities of the National Labour Consultative Council. It was Mr Hawke who deliberately staged the walk-out, who deliberately and directly involved his commercial negotiations and undertakings in the activities of the National Labour Consultative Council. Are we to see Mr Hawke do this again in his position on the Reserve Bank Board? Is that the sort of activity that the President of the ACTU is going to undertake? It falls far short of the standards that I thought he would have upheld in matters of this nature. Mr Hawke ‘s motive for walking out of the National Labour Consultative Council must be questioned. Why on earth did he walk out? Is he signalling that if his scheme is found to be outside the law he will use industrial action. Is that what he is on about? Is he signalling that if his commercial interests are not protected he will seek to intimidate government? Is that what he is on about? Does Mr Hawke want one law for himself and one law for every other Australian?

Mr Holding:

– Are you saying that it is outside the law?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable member for Melbourne Ports will remain silent. The honourable member for Port Adelaide was heard without interruption, and all other members are entitled to a similar courtesy.

Mr NIXON:

– Let me quote from a Press release I received today from the executive director of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents. It reads:

Do we accept that any laws, whether they be right or wrong, good or bad, may be flouted with impunity, the President of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, Mr John Webb said today. He was commenting on a Government investigation into the ACTU-Jetset travel subsidy operation. Mr Webb said that Transport Minister Nixon was to be congratulated on taking the present stand.

That is a slightly different approach from the biased, parochial and worse still, political approach being taken by the Labor Party. The matter proposed to the House for discussion states:

The damage to Australia’s industrial relations caused by the Government’s unnecessary and discriminatory raid on ACTUJetset.

I make the point that the matter of public importance ought to be amended so as to read: The damage to Australia’s industrial relations caused by the President of the ACTU in his misuse of his position as a member of that body, using the National Labour Consultative Council to protect his commercial interests’. That might have been a more accurate matter for presentation to the Parliament today.

Let me come to the history of this matter. On 5 July 1978, Mr Leibler, as managing director of Jetset Tours ( Aust) Pty Ltd, wrote to me informing me of his company’s decision to join with the ACTU in a joint venture in the travel industry. Mr Leibler ‘s letter did not set out the details of the proposed new ACTU Jetset discount scheme. On 7 September I wrote to Mr Leibler noting with interest his new venture with the ACTU. For the information of honourable members I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Dear Mr Leibler,

Thank you for your letter concerning your joint venture with the ACTU and the question of possible changes in Australia ‘s international aviation policies.

I have noted with interest your new venture with the ACTU.

With regard to your comments concerning proposed changes in Australia’s international aviation policies, I should mention that I publicly invited all interested organisations and individuals to make submissions to the International Policy Review Committee established by the Government.

The Government is giving further consideration to possible changed arrangements in the light of the two rounds of talks held recently with the United Kingdom. I would be pleased at an appropriate time to arrange consultations with representatives of the travel industry on changes which could result from negotiations being planned with a number of countries. I have no doubt that you would wish to participate in these discussions.

Yours sincerely,

Signed P. J. NIXON

On 2 1 September I wrote again to Mr Leibler, following advice from my Department on the details of the proposed travel scheme that it had obtained. In my letter I voiced concern about the scheme. I stated that I believed the arrangements to be highly discriminatory, as they would appear to be available to certain consumers and retailers only. That letter has already been read into Hansard by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). On 25 September, the Deputy Managing Director of Jetset Tours wrote to me saying that Mr Leibler was presently overseas and would reply to my letter when he returned to Australia. I have had no reply from Mr Leibler. What is the complaint? It was quite apparent to Mr Leibler and his organisation that a reply on the points I had raised was due, but no reply was sent.

On 28 September the President of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents sent me a telex expressing the Federation’s concern at the ACTU Leisure Club subsidy scheme which had been announced to the public on that day. For the information of honourable members, I seek to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

The Hon. P. Nixon

Minister for Transport

From: Australian Federation of Travel Agents

The Australian Federation of Travel Agents must express total disappointment at the failure of Government to intervene in the matter of the ACTU Leisure Club subsidy scheme announced today.

We are, of course, aware of your views as expressed in your telex of 8 September, however it now becomes imperative that the industry is advised one way or another as to the legality of subsidy operations.

Already the effect of today’s announcement is being felt by travel agents who have been besieged with enquiries from the public and who have at the moment, no possible chance of matching these offers.

To enable AFTA to inform members of the position we would appreciate your urgent advice as to when the Attorney-General will hand down a decision.

Regards,

JOHN C. WEBB

President

On the same day, the President of AFTA sent a telex to Mr Hawke, the President of the ACTU, expressing the Federation’s grave concern at the ACTU involvement in the subsidised travel arrangements. The telex stated:

It is difficult to understand trade union movement lending its support to an activity which might well undermine the Australian travel industry to the detriment of thousands of employees.

This was from the President of AFTA, of which Jetset Tours is a member. This was not from some politician, or from the Minister for Transport. The telex concluded:

It is ironical that the ACTU should lend itself to a situation which threatens the employment security of Australians at large.

In addition, I have received a large number of individual complaints from travel agents, all voicing concern at the discriminatory nature of the ACTU Jetset proposal. Yet the matter of public importance before us today speaks of my ‘unnecessary’ intrusion. I make the point that it would have represented a total lack of responsibility on my part as a Minister of the Crown had I not responded appropriately to the representations that had been made to me on this matter. Does the Labor Party suggest that if it had been in government it would have protected its friends? Is that what it is on about? Honourable members will recall that on 21 September in answer to a question by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) I voiced my concern about the proposal that had been put forward by ACTU Jetset. In my answer I said that, as I understood it, the particular scheme was a device which was designed by bypass the regulatory arrangements which were the foundations of Australia’s bilateral air services with other countries. I also indicated to the House that I was having the proposed scheme investigated by the Attorney-General’s Department.

At a meeting on Tuesday, 10 October, between officers of my Department, Commonwealth Police and the Crown Solicitor, an immediate course of action for investigation of the travel club proposal was agreed upon. Following the meeting, a principal legal officer of the Attorney-General’s Department drafted the necessary legal documents to enable the officers involved in the investigation to obtain and inspect the accounting records and documents relating to travel grant subsidies. These legal documents constituted an authority signed by the Acting Secretary of the Department which allowed officers to exercise power under subregulation 106a(15) of the Air Navigation Regulations; a certificate stating that certain officers were authorised to exercise that power; and a notice of requirement for the production by the person in charge within a reasonable period a statement containing certain particulars of books, accounting records and documents as referred to in sub-;regulation 106 ( 14).

These documents were served on the offices of ACTU Jetset at the first available opportunity in the normal established manner. The officers were not able to serve the documents during working hours on Friday, 13 October. They were served during normal working hours of ACTU Jetset on Saturday, 14 October. At 9.40 a.m. on Saturday, 14 October, a Department officer and a member of the Commonweatlh Police arrived at premises of ACTU Jetset Travel Service. The officers asked to talk to the person in charge, and after explaining the meaning of the Air Navigation Regulation served a notice of requirement. At the same time a visit by the same officers was arranged to take place on Monday, 16 October, at 2 p.m. Yesterday ACTU Jetset requested that the visit by the investigating officers be deferred until Wednesday of this week.

Might I point out that there was no intention to take away any documents from the ACTU Jetset premises. Merely what is sought is an inspection of documents to be undertaken in the office of ACTU Jetset and the production of a written statement relating to books and records by the person in charge within a reasonable period. Having served the notice the officers left the premises. I make it quite clear to the House that on at least six previous occasions the same subregulations have been used to allow officers to obtain documentation and to inspect records in situations similar to that which obtained on Saturday, 14 October. This is at least the seventh time since the Air Navigation Regulations were amended in April 1976 that a Commonwealth policeman has served or has been present when papers were served under sub-regulation 106a ( 1 5) on the office of a business involved in the travel industry. I also make it clear that the documents were served in the same way that all such documents are served by the Commonwealth. It is customary for the Commonwealth Police to serve the documents and to undertake the investigation.

As I have said, this has been done in the same way on at least six previous occasions under this sub-regulation of the Air Navigation Regulations alone. Yet the matter of public importance raised today describes the action as- discriminatory. There is nothing discriminatory about it. Do honourable members opposite want me to treat ACTU Jetset differently from other members of this community? Why should ACTU Jetset not be treated exactly the same as everybody else? For Mr Hawke to describe the serving of a notice in the same way as such notices have been served on six other travel agents and airlines previously as a ‘raid’ is quite ludicrous. To use Mr Hawke ‘s own words, it is ‘melodramatic nonsense’ for Mr Hawke so to describe the serving of the papers. Honourable members ought to know that what is being proposed by ACTU Jetset is a kick-back arrangement whereby passengers buying a ticket in the normal manner are given a cash discount if they buy the ticket from ACTU Jetset. For instance, I understand that clients of certain travel agents have already cancelled bookings because they have been offered a cash discount if they buy those same tickets from ACTU Jetset. The implications of this practice for the commercial viability of other travel agents is obvious.

All travel agents are required to observe the provisions of the law. This is a fact clearly acknowledged and understood by the Australian Federation of Travel Agents. Travel agents making representations to me have indicated their concern that the proposed kick-back arrangement offered by ACTU Jetset may be illegal and a practice they are precluded by law from following themselves. My concern is to determine the source of the funds used to pay the kick-backs. I am quite determined to ensure that the cost of these kick-backs is not borne by the rest of the travelling public. When it is considered that these kick-backs are estimated to run into many millions of dollars the full implications to fares and airline costs for the rest of the travelling public can be gauged.

If unionists themselves wish to subsidise the travel of members of the ACTU Leisure Club by paying higher union dues that is their concern. If the funds for these kick-backs are coming from the airlines the travelling public effectively is subsidising the travel of a select group of people who belong to the ACTU Leisure Club. If the airlines have the capacity to offer cash discounts on fares to one particular travel agent group they ought to be offering those reduced fares to all 14 million Australians. That would be nondiscriminatory. As this House would know, it has been my concern to introduce lower air fares on a non-discriminatory basis. The Government is determined to make its reduced fares available to all 14 million Australians.

Mr Hawke ‘s decision yesterday that the ACTU would not be participating in the meeting of the National Labour Consultative Council because of the notice served on ACTU Jetset on Saturday has extremely serious implications for private enterprise and democracy in this country. Mr Hawke is using his position as President of the ACTU to promote his own commercial interests in the free market place. Mr Hawke ‘s action yesterday was quite irresponsible and one of which I did not believe he was capable. Mr

Hawke has to learn to appreciate the difference between his position as President of the ACTU and his involvement with ACTU Jetset Travel Service Pty Ltd. His action yesterday provided a direct threat to free enterprise and democracy in Australia. ACTU Jetset Travel Service is operating in the normal market place along with some 800. other travel agents. It is quite improper of Mr Hawke to try to use his position as President of the ACTU to further his commercial interests.

The Government stands for free enterprise and equality of opportunity for all Australians. Clearly Mr Hawke and those others who are supporting the ACTU Jetset proposal are seeking to establish a preferential position for ACTU Jetset in the market place. Clearly Mr Hawke is not concerned about the unemployment in the travel industry that his proposal would cause. Clearly Mr Hawke is prepared to use the union movement to promote the commercial activities of a private operator with which he is involved. Mr Hawke ‘s activities and actions during the last three days have been dishonest and hypocritical. They will be condemned by every fair-minded and free-thinking Australian who supports private enterprise. Mr Hawke ‘s actions are a clear indication of what his socialist ideas would do to this country. They would destroy competition, favour the preferred few and destroy private enterprise, jobs and entrepreneurial spirit. Despite the irresponsible reporting by certain journalists and the attempts by Mr Hawke to use the Australian union movement in this way, I am sure the people of Australia will reject this proposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I think the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) did responsible government a great injustice in the end of his speech with the hysterical Country Party dogma about democracy and so on as he sees it. To represent a reduction in air fares as a threat to democracy and to paint the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions as being dishonest and hypocritcal are issues for which he will have to answer to the community. I do not think anybody believes him. I do not think he believes himself. But the jargon was there. The Opposition does not have to try to rescue the President of the ACTU, as the Minister would put it. What we want to concentrate on is the Government’s discriminatory attitude in its rather blundering performance of last Saturday. The Minister posed a series of rhetorical questions but he did not explain away the discrimination he exhibited last Saturday in the raid on the headquarters of ACTU Jetset Travel Service Pty Ltd.

I want to mark the significance of the date of the letter of 21 September. The Minister made constant reference to that letter. Because he did not receive a satisfactory reply to it he ordered in the storm-troopers last Saturday. But 21 September was also the day on which the Minister answered in this House a Dorothy Dix question on ACTU Jetset. In the course of that answer he sought to terrorise potential clients of ACTU Jetset into, not doing business with that firm. I wish to show that this was part of a pre-conceived plot. It was not something that happened by accident. Clearly it was part of a program laid down some weeks ago. Listening to the Minister was like listening to the old episodes of Dragnet starring Jack Webb- ‘At 9.40 a.m. an officer of the Department of Transport and a Commonwealth Police officer arrived at the office of ACTU Jetset. They explained the meaning of the Air Navigation Regulations. They served a notice of requirement. Having served the notice of requirement they then departed the premises’. It is a pity Jack Webb was not here to portray the incident better than the Minister could. In any reasonable assessment of what happened last Saturday, it was a blundering, unnecessary performance and a clear exercise of political discrimination by a Minister who pleads the rights of democracy but practices the principles of partiality in support of those he wishes to advantage.

Nixon’s Raiders, as they have come to be known, in the terms of our statements today have caused damage to Australia’s industrial relations by their unnecessary and discriminatory raid on the premises of ACTU Jetset last Saturday. As I have said, the action was unnecessary. I believe it was based to a large extent on the Minister’s obsession with the trade union movement and his animosity towards the trade union movement. I have only to remind honourable members of how he managed not so long ago to ground our domestic airline fleet by bringing on the strike of the air traffic controllers. As well as that for several months now the Minister has exhibited an obsession for secrecy on aviation matters and an idelogical opposition to cheaper air fares. He talks about cheaper air fares, he promises cheaper air fares and he explains about cheaper air fares but he cannot provide cheaper air fares. There has not been one seat out of this country at a cheaper rate and there is not likely to be one at a cheaper rate for some time to come, irrespective of the statement of last week.

Let us go back to the history of sub-regulation 106A, and its application in this country and whether there is a matter of illegality. Several months ago the Department of Transport sent letters to fifty of what was believed to be some 200 travel organisations which were offering travel subsidies. In those letters the Department warned the agents- to desist by 14 April. Widespread publicity was given to those letters sent by the Department. There has been no report to the Parliament by the Minister on that action. Widespread publicity was also given to what was being proposed by ACTU Jetset. The Minister could have asked for details of the proposal by ACTU Jetset from its staff. He did; but, as I said, on 21 September he was not prepared to ask again. He was not prepared to write a further letter. He was not prepared to do so because the whole thing was a plot. He was creating a scenario for moving in the storm-troopers- Nixon’s Raiders. Many other organisations were offering travel grants but so far the Minister has acted in this way- in a public fashion with a great deal of hoorah- only against ACTU Jetset. To my knowledge only against ACTU Jetset has there been a pre-arranged Dorothy Dix question in the House. The only other area of discrimination and opposition to lower air fares has been against Australian Student Travel Service Pty Ltd. In that exercise the Minister used the same tactics. He terrorised the potential clients of AUS Travel, as he has sought to terrorise the clients of ACTU Jetset. He warned them that they should not travel and that seats might not be available. That, in the market place, is the same as terrorising in another place.

The Minister says that seven organisations out of some 200 are being examined. What about the Australian Leisure Club which is owned by major oil and chemical interests? Why has he not raised a Dorothy Dix question on its activities? Why did he not include mention of that in the question of 2 1 September? Why did he not raise the issue of the travel grant of the Young Liberals of Victoria? The matter was raised at Question Time and the Minister said: ‘We are looking at it’. The matter was not of sufficient importance to be raised in the Parliament by the Minister. Why did the Minister not raise the issue of the Newcastle United Leisure Club? The Minister had much to say a few moments ago about how he was responding to representations from the Australian Federation of Travel Agents but he made no mention of the Newcastle United Leisure Club which is represented in the travel field by a vice-president of AFTA, Mr Jim Jenkins. A report in the Australian Financial Review of 5 October concerning remarks made by Mr Jenkins stated:

While he had always believed club subsidies were illegal, they had been going on for over two years and obviously Mr Nixon had found them acceptable or the Minister was prepared to ignore the law.

So a vice-president of AFTA apparently goes ahead -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– A former President of it.

Mr MORRIS:

– The former President of AFTA goes ahead and participates in the same exercise on the basis that another office was being set up 200 yards down the street from him and he might as well be in on it. They are not Mr Jenkins’ exact words but they are near enough to what is reported in the newspaper. Let us go back further. In November 1976 the Minister said to the Aviation Press Club that he was concerned about breaches of air fare discounting procedures and that he was concerned about regulation 106 A, the same regulation that we are discussing today. I put a question on notice on 5 April concerning breaches of regulation 106A. I asked:

  1. a ) have these investigations been completed

The Minister said: ‘Yes’. I then asked:

  1. have any individuals or organisations been charged with breaches of Air Navigation Regulation 106a

The answer was no. I then asked:

  1. what was the nature of these breaches, and
  2. what has been the result of his Department’s action in each case.

Then came the essence of what this is all about and what Nixon’s raiders on Saturday were all about. It shows the long plot. The reply is dated 3 June and reads:

The cases involve a wide variety of practices believed to be contrary to the requirements of Air Navigation Regulation 106a. In a number of cases the airlines or travel agents concerned were prevailed upon to cease or desist. Other cases were passed to the Crown Law Authorities for consideration, however, certain evidentiary problems precluded prosecution.

Who is the Minister trying to fool? What is happening in this case, as the Minister let out at Question Time when he refused to table the advice of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, is that the advice contains the grounds of the action that he is proceeding to mount against ACTU Jetset in order to test the validity of regulation 106a. If that is what the Minister is about he could have been honest and frank. He has had an opportunity to deny the allegations; he did not do so at Question Time. He raised the matter by referring to grounds for action. He knows that the regulation is defective. He told the Parliament so.

Why did he discriminatory select the ACTU travel organisation? We have to look at the wonderful effort of Nixon’s raiders on ACTU Jetset. A dragnet was arranged and scheduled to start at 9.40 a.m. The Minister did not say that the officers set out to do this last Friday. We must bear in mind that the plan was developed on 10 October between the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), the Commonwealth police and officers of the Department of Transport, but they put the wrong address on the documents. After they set sail on Friday they found that the documents bore the wrong address. They had to go back and prepare new documents. That is the Minister’s explanation for the officers having arrived on Saturday rather than on Monday when they might have found somebody there in a position of responsibility.

The only construction that we can place upon the events of last Saturday are as follows: Firstly, they reveal the discrimination of this Government against the trade union movement and any efforts it makes to advantage the needs of its members; secondly, they reveal the Government’s inability to administer in an evenhanded, proper and responsible way its obligations under bilateral arrangements with nations and with the International Air Transport Association; and, thirdly, they reveal the Government’s blind and continuing opposition to the introduction of lower air fares. We have had statements on the matter and we had a false pregnancy last week. We have no clear indication of what the negotiations with other countries will provide. We do not know when cheaper air fares might be available. In the meantime Ministers of this country who are travelling at taxpayers expense do not see fit to travel on Australia’s own airline, Qantas Airways Ltd. Ministers are swapping their travel warrants to Thai International. Other Ministers are cashing in their travel entitlements and travelling with Singapore Airlines rather than Qantas. If the Minister is concerned about Qantas and its loss of revenue he should ask his own Ministers to use Qantas.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

– I am most concerned with the vein running through this debate. It would seem to me from the comments made by members of the Opposition that inherent in the matter raised for discussion is the fact that if the Australian Council of Trade Unions is not allowed to do certain things and is not allowed to proceed down a certain line of action industrial problems will follow. I consider this to be an instance of an attempt to blackmail the Australian Government into agreeing with an illegal action. We hear of strike action while courts are sitting. We hear of threats being made while courts are finding on industrial problems. I can give instances of small groups of key personnel outside the court seeking to influence the courts by refusing to work and by bringing industries to a standstill. Recently we had problems with waterside workers and other personnel on the waterside, with the New South Wales Railways and with petrol maintenance workers. Small key groups have been seeking to disrupt the Austraiian way of life and the Australian economy. They have been seeking to influence the decisions of government and the courts. They have been seeking to influence those people with responsibility and other responsible unionists. Usually the findings of courts in such circumstances is that no decision will be made until there is a return to work and industrial peace. Most disputes are over wages and conditionsgenuine claims that relate to workers.

The spokesmen for the Opposition in the discussion of this matter of public importance have said that unless the Government yields to what may be an illegal suggestion by the ACTU there will be industrial unrest. It seems that the ACTU and the Labor Party are not concerned about unemployment, about women in the work force and about other important measures. They are prepared, for a blatant political stunt, to walk out of an important conference in an endeavour to blackmail this Government into accepting an illegal action. The matter is as simple as that. It is a blatant use of force by the union movement to get its own way against reasonable people who are proposing reasonable action on behalf of the Australian community.

The Opposition has said that it will discuss matters that are relevant to ACTU Jetset Travel Service Pty Ltd in the councils of this country only if it gets its own way. Rules for air travel have been developed on a government to government basis to protect individuals. Important decisions are sought to be overturned by ACTU Jetset. Mr Hawke, President of the ACTU, endeavoured to force the Government to give him a commercial favour by blatantly threatening industrial trouble. The commercial favour involves some $10m. It will be a $10m advantage to the union movement if the Government will agree. If it will not agree there will be industrial stoppages and standover tactics. These tactics are commonly used and were blatantly displayed yesterday by the President of the

ACTU. The $10m is the difference between what people would normally pay for their air travel and what the ACTU has been able to work out by private deals with some airline or other. The $ 10m is illegal money at this stage.

Companies and individuals who have endeavoured to adopt these techniques but have been investigated have been forced to stop. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) mentioned AUS Student Travel Service Pty Ltd. It was taken to the High Court of Australia and prevented from continuing its actions which were illegal. The provisions in international agreements are included for the safety, protection and the types of services offered to passengers, not just for fares. The ACTU has said that it will disregard those provisions and will make a deal with some airline that has not been named- a foreign airline, not Qantas Airways Ltd- in such a way that it will gain $ 10m. How will it get these funds? Who will they come from? Will they come from the airline in the form of direct cash payments? Will laundered money be flowing through some other avenue into the funds of ACTU Jetset? Where will that money come from? Will it come from the pockets of the workers, their union fees? I think that of the large number of unionists in Australia, the small number who will travel will be a very privileged group if this scheme is to operate from unionists’ funds and fees paid to their legitimate organisations.

Will the funds in fact come from the airline which will state that the declared fare is the legal one but, by some technique, it will pay a kickback; it will give a back door access to a discount which will go straight into the funds of ACTU Jetset. It will be a foreign airline. Qantas has about 10,000 Australian employees. They include people who do not fly the aircraft. The majority of employees are members of the Transport Workers Union, maintenance workers, metal workers and miscellaneous workers. Hawke has left them; he has dumped them and has said that he will take on the best foreign airline that will give him the biggest discount. That is his support for the Australian workers. He was supposed to be involved in a conference on unemployment. What did he do? He walked out of the conference on unemployment to create unemployment by doing a deal with a foreign company. I do not know what members of the Opposition will stand for. I do not know why they have brought this matter into the House today.

I cannot understand the proposition. The proposition in my view is simply this: The Labor

Party yields to the demands of unions of this country concerning an illegal action that the unions or their spokesmen wish to carry out; otherwise there will be trouble. It seems perfectly unreasonable that the Opposition should support the ACTU in this way. I think it certainly should be seeking to gain cheap air fares for the workers of the nation. I do not think that Bob Hawke is a poor man’s Freddy Laker. I think in this instance he is more likely to turn out to be a Peter Huxley. We will find the funds involved in some account that cannot be audited, about which nobody will have details or information and to which nobody can gain access. I do not think any worker will be able to tell whether he is contributing to the $10m gained by the ACTU or whether in fact that money will come from a foreign airline.

Let us look at the record of the ACTU. Let us look at Bourke ‘s Melbourne Pty Ltd. How many cheap shirts is it selling today to the workers of this nation? That was a great success! I have a small document concerning cheap petrol and the way in which that was achieved. This document is entitled ‘Circumstances of the Transfer of Allocated Indigenous Crude Oil by Allied Petrochemicals Pty Limited to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Limited’. The Royal Commission on Petroleum which was set up to examine a business enterprise undertaken by ACTUSolo, the same union movement and the same leader that are involved in cheap air fares, found that they misled the Labor Government; in fact the Minister was completely deceived. Those are the words that are used in this document. Now we have another stunt of exactly the same type. This is the third stunt in train. But members of the Opposition suggest today that the intervention of the Government to take responsible action for all Australians might cause industrial unrest.

This Government will not play favourites; it will not seek to exert influence on Ministers in the way in which the ACTU exerted influence on Mr Connor when the Labor Government was in power. This Government is determined to introduce low cost air fares that will benefit all Australians without discrimination, including all members of unions and all people who are not in unions. There will be no kickbacks; there will be no undisclosed accounts. People will understand where the funds are. They will understand that the Government has acted responsibly to do a good deal for them and is not seeking a dishonest advantage for itself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! The discussion is concluded.

page 1918

PRODUCTS OF THE PRINTING INDUSTRY

Industries Assistance Commission Report

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on products of the printing industry.

page 1918

TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I move:

Customs Tariffproposals No. 29 ( 1978)

The customs tariff proposals that I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The proposals implement the Government’s decision on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on products of the printing industry. The effect of the changes is that calendars, transfers, other than certain sublimation transfer printing paper, and other printed matter which at present is dutiable at 35 per cent will be dutiable at 25 per cent. Sublimation transfer printing paper having a width of 0.91 metre or more, when imported in rolls, will be free of duty. There is no change in the rates of duty applying to other printed matter. The new duties will operate from tomorrow. The proposals also contain an administrative change which does not vary rates of duty. A comprehensive summary of the changes contained in the proposals has been prepared and is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 1918

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– by leave- Before debate commences on this Bill I wish to foreshadow that it is the Government’s intention vo move certain amendments to the Bill. Copies of the amendments have been circulated to honourable members. The amendments concern the two important areas of the Bill, that is, the provisions which introduce a new disciplinary code within the Australian Public Service and those which relate to the rights of officers of the Public Service who move to other areas of Commonwealth employment. The majority of the amendments are technical in nature, brought about by deficiencies that have come to light since the Bill’s introduction. The remaining amendments result from representations made to the Government. The nature of the amendments will be explained more fully during the proposed Legislation Committee consideration of the Bill.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition has been made aware of the amendments which are being circulated this afternoon. I hope the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) takes into account that members of the Opposition will require some time to look at them. I am not too sure how consequential the amendments are. As the Public Service Amendment Bill 1978 has very wide support from the peak councils of the union movement, I would not like any major alterations being made to it that would mean that its passage would be held up. We will certainly look at the matters. As the new system of legislation committees gives us an opportunity to consider the BDI in detail, we hold no strong objection to the manner in which these amendments are now presented.

This Bill is extremely complex. It affects the lives of tens of thousands of people who work in the Commonwealth Public Service. It is long overdue and I suggest that the operations of the Legislation Committee will give interested members a golden opportunity to look at the operations of the Public Service, especially the two major provisions of this Bill. However, it is very difficult to do that in a speech on the second reading of the Bill. My remarks this afternoon will be brief, as we will go through the clauses in the Legislation Committee in the next month.

The Opposition will be supporting this Bill, as it will provide for some overdue changes to the machinery provisions of the Public Service Act so as to promote improvement in the overall operational efficiency and morale of the Australian Public Service. The Opposition naturally supports the new discipline provisions which are provided for by clause 20 of the Bill. The proposed provisions represent the acceptance of the recommendations of a sub-committee of the Joint Council of the Australian Public Servicerecommendations which honourable members will recall the Labor Government substantially implemented for the staff of Australia Post and Telecom Australia when in 1975 the Labor Government introduced the Telecommunications Act and the Postal Services Act. It is a pity that the Government has taken so long to introduce the new disciplinary code into the Public

Service area. However, as the change represents improvements from both the viewpoint of personnel management and staff, the Opposition naturally supports the proposed changes.

Features of the new disciplinary provisions of value include, firstly, a contemporary expression of behaviour constituting misconduct- the new provisions are set out in the new sections 55 and 56; and, secondly, a sounder management procedure for dealing with Second, Third and Fourth Division Staff whose conduct is under challenge. Some of the disadvantages of the new procedures are, firstly, that greater emphasis placed upon responsible supervisory behaviour and adequate staff counselling; and, secondly, the fairer processes so far as staff are concerned, for dealing with complaints of misconduct, which fortunately are not all that frequent, as the statistics show. Emphasis on counselling staff is positive emphasis which the Opposition commends.

One aspect which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs might care to inform the House about is the likelihood that appeals by staff against charges for misconduct might soon be dealt with by a personnel appeals tribunal as was recommended by the Royal Commission into Australian Government Administration, which the House will recall was established by the Whitlam Labor Government. I understand that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations have been pressing the Public Service Board on the institutions of new grievance processes as recommended by the Coombs Royal Commission. Mention of that Royal Commission’s activity reminds me of the fact that despite the initiative of the Labor Government in establishing what was the major review of the Public Service system in Australia this century, the current Government has done remarkably little about implementing the major recommendations of the Royal Commission. Why, for instance, has the Government not done something about abolishing artificial distinctions of the divisional structure? Where is the legislation about that? The Labor Government abolished the divisional structure in Australia Post and Telecom Australia in 1 975 when it introduced the legislation to which I referred earlier.

I would now like to make several comments about the other major changes to be brought about by the Bill now before the House. By clause 31 of the Bill a new code is to be introduced which will assist in the interchange of staff between the Australian Public Service and Commonwealth statutory authorities and public authorities, including State authorities. The divisions are in the new section 87. The objective of promoting greater mobility of employment will bring about its own rewards in increased management efficiency in the Commonwealth bureaucracy as well as bringing greater career opportunities and work satisfaction for staff. Interchange of staff between the Commonwealth, the States and local government does present some difficulty, but not difficulties that cannot be overcome. The effort is worth while in the interests of better administration of public sector acitivities with the consequential effect of better service to the community. One essential ingredient which the Government must provide if it wants to pay more than Up service to staff mobility is the provision of satisfactory housing facilities for transferred staff. The Minister might care to comment on what plans the Government has for making adequate housing arrangements for transferred or exchanged staff. After all without such lubrication the Bill now before us will not achieve its full objective.

The Opposition raises no objection to the other elements of the Bill under discussion, for example, clause 15 of the Bill, which goes to the question of recognition of prior service. One matter of satisfaction to the Australian Labor Party is that the bulk of the Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Joint Council of the Australian Public Service, which was a pioneering worker- management consultative process introduced in 1945- as long as 33 years ago- by a Labor Government.

The Opposition supports this Bill enthusiastically on behalf of all the people who will be affected by it. We look forward to discussing this Bill further in the Legislation Committee over the next few months.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

-On 6 June this year the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), who is sitting at the table, introduced the Public Service Amendment Bill 1978 into the House with a view to its being enacted during this year. The Bill proposes the most substantial amendments to the Public Service Act since that Act was passed in 1922. The major parts of the Bill concern, firstly, the rights of officers of the Public Service who move to other areas of Commonwealth employment and, secondly, the disciplinary provisions applicable to staff of the Service. Over the time that I have been in this House- that is, since the demise of the Whitlam Labor Government- it has been fashionable in Canberra to claim that this Government has an anti-Public Service bias. There has in fact been a claim that governments in general, ever since the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) made his famous ‘fat cat’ statement, have an anti-government employee bias.

I am pleased, as the honourable member for Canberra representing many thousands of public servants, to be leading for the Government on the resumption of the debate on the second reading of this historic Bill. The Bill should go a long way to assure responsible members of the Public Service that both this Government and, I think, governments in general are concerned for the welfare and better management of the Commonwealth Public Service and that they are not about putting down their own employees. It is not the act of an uncaring administration to introduce this legislation, which has taken so long from the genesis of the need amendment to come to fruition. As the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) said, advice has been taken from a wide group of people on a nonpartisan basis.

This historic Bill will change sections of the legislation which have been in force since 1922. One of the main provisions of the legislation refers to the present Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928, which specifies the rights of permanent staff of the Public Service who engage in employment with Commonwealth authorities staffed outside the Public Service Act. In 1973, following a comprehensive review of the existing provisions, the Joint Council of the Australian Public Service recommended that the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act be repealed and be replaced by a new scheme to be inserted in the Public Service Act. The Public Service Amendment Bill seeks to implement this scheme by the insertion of a new Part IV in the Public Service Act. The scheme covers officers who have taken up a position with a Commonwealth authority for a period of up to three years and maintains their rights in certain important ways. It also covers permanent staff who, at the end of the three-year period- that is the initial perioddecide to stay on. The Bill envisages that the existing Officers’ Rights Declaration Act will continue to apply only to persons covered by that Act at the time the new scheme comes into operation. Such persons will, however, have the right to elect to be covered by the new provisions.

The disciplinary provisions of the Bill, too, have remained virtually unchanged since 1922. Any honourable member of this House who looks after an electorate with a large number of public servants in it would have almost weekly contact with public servants who have some difference of opinion with their employer and who find frustration in dealing with their employer on a number of technical and quasijudicial or legal matters. In 1 973, the Joint Council undertook a comprehensive review aimed at bringing the provisions into line with the modern concept of the role of the disciplinary process in public administration. Some of the points of this review covered the need to facilitate efficient administration and to promote public confidence in the integrity of that administration and the fact that disciplinary processes should not unnecessarily concern themselves with the private lives of staff members. Also, the disciplinary provisions were seen to be needed to be complementary to other management processes of supervision, leadership and staff counselling with disciplinary action generally being a last resort.

It is necessary for the disciplinary action in the Public Service to be seen as essentially an administrative rather than a judicial process. But, of course, the very necessary principles of natural justice and fairness should be observed in any new scheme. The new disciplinary code proposed in the Bill makes various changes to the existing provisions to take account of these general principles. It is designed to ensure that the process functions more efficiently and effectively. There will be a devolution of the Board’s current role so that the department concerned, the immediate employer, is more intrinsically and closely involved in the disciplinary process. This must be a real plus because undoubtedly it will lead to a more personal approach on such matters. Disciplinary appeal provisions will now apply also to temporary staff who have been or will be employed for at least one year.

Greater emphasis will be placed on the specification of the rights of persons against whom disciplinary action is taken, including such matters as rights of reply to charges, entitlements to reasons for decisions, extension of appeal rights to cover all formal disciplinary action and provisions enabling findings to be reviewed when new evidence comes to light. I regard that as being one of the most important areas of this legislation. It is in that area that public servants find the greatest frustration when they are dealing with disciplinary matters. They can never really come to grips with what they are being accused of or charged with. There is a great reluctance on the part of administrations to give reasons and there are some very technical provisions which prevent proper appeals to be made by people caught up in disciplinary cases.

Disciplinary action based on improper conduct will be limited by the passage of this Bill to conduct which adversely affects the performance of the officer’s duties or brings the Service, itself into disrepute. The relevance or irrelevance of matters extraneous to a person’s performance of his duty will not loom large any longer. New provisions will be introduced enabling action to be taken so that officers who absent themselves from duty without authority for more than four weeks will be deemed to have retired from the Service, but to ensure that they are not unfairly deprived or retired from the Service proper appeal provisions will apply. Second Division officers now will be grouped with Third Division and Fourth Division officers for disciplinary purposes.

There are provisions of the Bill that are designed to simplify and improve aspects of the Public Service Act, which is a very lengthy and in many cases difficult Act for employees and those dealing with it to understand. The Board currently has the responsibility of granting leave without pay. A new general power is to be vested in departments to grant such leave on particular terms and conditions and within guidelines. The Joint Council’s proposals in relation to the recognition of prior service and recreation leave arrangements have also been covered by the Bill. I think these particular clauses will lead to some further examination and suggestions when consideration of the Bill reaches the legislation committee stage. I have already received a number of suggestions from public servants in Canberra who feel that perhaps the Bill could go a little further in that respect. The current outmoded restriction on the appointment of graduates to the Public Service will be eliminated and a number of other technical and tidying-up provisions have been included.

I hope that a detailed analysis of this Bill will be conducted by a legislation committee so that honourable members will have a better opportunity to go through the many sections of what is one of the thickest Bills, if I can put it in that way, to be introduced into the House for some time. It is a complex matter but the legislation committees, operating on a non-partisan basis, should be able to continue the work which has been done since 1973 in bringing this historic Bill before the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Motion (by Mr Viner for Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That this Bill be referred to a legislation committee for report by 14 November 1978.

page 1922

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I know that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) has a statement to make about this Bill. While we are waiting for his arrival, perhaps I could commence to speak on the motion for the second reading of the Bill and then seek leave to continue my remarks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Ian Robinson)- I shall allow that course to be followed.

Mr HURFORD:

– I will be brief; so I hope that the Minister will not be long. I would explain at this stage not only to the primary school children and the other hardy people in the Public Gallery but also to those who are listening to the debate that this Bill, rather like the previous Bill, is one of those Bills which are supported by both sides of the House. This Bill seeks to amend legislation. In this case it is good legislation which seeks to ensure that there is competition for the benefit of consumers. With changing practices in the community it is necessary to look at that legislation regularly and bring it up to date. That is what is happening in this case. As I have already indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. As the Minister has arrived, to give him an opportunity to make a statement about further amendments which are to be made to the Bill and about which he has had the courtesy to tell me, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

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

– by leave- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) for the courtesy extended to me in this matter. Since my second reading speech introducing the Trade Practices Amendment Bill in April this year, the Government has received a number of submissions on the Bill from industry, business and consumer groups. These submissions relate principally to the manufacturers warranties provisions of the Bill. After careful consideration of the submissions received, the Government has decided that amendments should be moved to the Bill when it is considered during the Committee stage. Apart from a number of amendments to clarify certain provisions of the Bill, the amendments seek to make the following changes.

First, the definition of express warranty is to be amended so that an express warranty applies to undertakings, assertions or statements in relation to the quality, performance or characteristics of the goods. Secondly, a manufacturer’s liability, where his goods are of unmerchantable quality, will be extended to the successors in title to a consumer. Thirdly, the amendments seek to provide a statutory limitation on the liability of a manufacturer to indemnify a seller in the circumstances set out in the Bill. Fourthly, the amendments seek to provide greater certainty as to the time at which a seller’s or a consumer’s cause of action will accrue against the manufacturer and to provide for a maximum period of 10 years during which the manufacturer will remain liable for his goods.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I shall continue with my speech in the second reading debate of this Bill. I explained that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. I explained that while we are not being critical of the particular amendments of which the House has been notified for some time, that is not to say that we will not need more information on a couple of the amendments which the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) has just notified to the House, particularly during the Legislation Committee hearing. We will need more information about those amendments before we are able to make a decision on them.

That is also not to say that we do not have some misgivings about part of the legislation. We intend to voice those misgivings. Not only will I do so but my colleague, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) who will speak later in this debate, also will voice a number of misgivings about the consumer protection sections of the Act generally and the amendments to those sections in the Bill which is now being debated. We have even more misgivings about the administration of the trade practices legislation generally at the present time and what may be ahead in the pipeline in the way of further amendments which will further water down the legislaton. That does not mean that there is no need for changes. Prior to giving way for the Minister to make his statement I indicated that changes are taking place all the time in the community which require changes in legislation to bring it up to date.

The amendments introduced by the Minister earlier this year fall into three categories. Firstly, there is an extension of the present exemptions from the prohibition in section 45a of the Act to cover price fixing for joint ventures relating to services. Section 45a prohibits collusion generally. The exemptions allow collusion relating to price fixing between partners in a joint venture applying to goods. We now note that the proposed amendment to the trade practices legislation involves the exemption of price fixing for joint ventures relating to services so that the exemption corresponds with that relating to goods. It was apparently the intention of the Goverment that the 1977 amendments to the Trade Practices Act should provide for equality of treatment between joint ventures for goods and joint ventures for services. However, the Trade Practices Amendment Act 1977 refers only to goods. The aim of the amendment in this Bill to section 45a of the Principal Act is to remove this anomaly. Hence, as the Government’s 1977 amendments were accepted it would seem reasonable to remove the possibility that the law unfavourably discriminates against joint ventures for services vis a vis joint ventures for goods.

Before accepting this amendment unconditionally it is worth while considering the wisdom of exempting price fixing in joint ventures from the prohibition of section 45A. It is worth while noting that the intentions of this Bill and the 1977 amendment Bill went much further than the recommendations of the Swanson committee, the Committee, the Committee set up by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in the Fraser Government to look at the Trade Practices Act brought in by the Whitlam Government and advise the present Government whether it was too harsh in its effect upon the business community. The amendment relating to services goes further than the recommendations of the Swanson Committee. The Committee argued, firstly, that all restrictions on joint venture agreements, other than those having the purpose or effect of fixing prices, should be judged on their effects on competition between the parties to the agreement and other persons. This would have significantly relaxed the law regarding joint ventures. It argued, secondly, that restrictions in joint venture agreements which have the purpose or effect of fixing prices of the product sold should be prohibited except where they can ‘reasonably be regarded as necessary if the parties are to agree to a joint venture’.

Joint ventures may be an increasingly important means of improving the international competitiveness of Australian industry. With 14 million people we are a small country compared with many of our competitors in world markets. This smallness could lead to insufficient economies of scale. That is why we need joint ventures. It is necessary for the companies in our country which are smaller than their competitors to get together with other, we hope Austraiian, companies to form a unit of the necessary size in many cases to undertake a particular project. This improvement in competitiveness could result from the additional size or the complementary nature of plant and equipment, staff, finance, know-how or property which amalgamation may achieve.

Joint ventures and natural resources development are often regarded as synonymous. However, this should not disguise the fact that they also present possibilities for excessive profit and restricted output by using the agreement to avoid price competition. For this reason, it is a pity that the Swanson Committee’s recommendationsthis is our view; naturally we will be glad to hear the Minister in reply on this subject- were not followed since the allowance for authorisation would have enabled the Trade Practices Commission to balance the public benefits associated with improved international competitiveness against the possible anti-competitive detriments associated with including price in the joint venture agreement.

Before leaving the subject of joint ventures I also note that the amendments will make it easier for parties to enter into joint venture price agreements on services in other ways. The amendments are understood to follow representations from the major trading banks seeking exemption from section 45 of the Act for consortium bank lending arrangements. In a joint consortium loan, a lead bank negotiates on behalf of all the participating banks. The terms and conditions of the loan are the same between all the lenders and borrowers. This sort of arrangement could cause difficulties under section 45 at present as it is doubtful whether the exemption in that section in relation to joint ventures applies to services of this type. The relevant amendments are expected to correct this situation. If they do- we hope that they do- this will be welcome. In a world of increasing trade, which we hope will apply to our country, it is necessary for our banks to be more imaginative than they have been in the past and to get together in joint lending arrangements such as the one I have suggested.

The other two points I make about the legislation, as it was announced to the House earner this year, are the introduction of a specific prohibition on false or misleading job advertisements and the inclusion in the Act of provisions relating to manufacturers’ warranties. As I have already suggested, my colleague, the honourable member for Parramatta will be saying much more about the consumer protection clauses in the amending Bill. I merely mention that the first part of the Minister’s proposed amendments which deals with new section 53B will prohibit all corporations from making materially false or misleading statements in job advertisements. The law presently covers only advertisements by employment agencies. The second part of the Minister’s amendments deals with new sections 74A to 74L, which will provide that manufacturers and importers generally will be concurrently liable with the actual seller of the goods and that the actual seller of the goods will be able to recover damages in cases where the consumer could have recovered similar damages from the manufacturer or importer. That applies in certain conditions. Those conditions are as follows: Firstly, where the goods are not reasonably fit for a purpose made known to the manufacturer or importer; secondly, where the goods do not correspond with the description which the manufacturer or importer has applied to them; thirdly, where the goods are not of merchantable quality; fourthly, where they do not correspond with a sample supplied; fifthly, where the manufacturer or importer unreasonably fails to ensure that repair or service facilities are available to the consumer; and, lastly, where the manufacturer or importer fails to comply with an express warranty made by him in relation to the goods.

As I say, those particular consumer protection changes will be enlarged upon by the honourable member for Parramatta. Before I resume my seat I would like to make some comments on the statement which the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has just made and which gave notice that further amendments are to be introduced at the Committee stage. The Minister puts those amendments into four categories. The Opposition has no objection whatsoever to the proposed amendments. In fact, we support the amendments contained in the first two categories. As for the amendments in the second two categories, the case rests at the present time. The jury is out. We need more information. We hope that we will get that information when the Bill is considered by the Legislation Committee. We will make our judgments when we get that information.

Now I shall be more specific. The Minister referred, first of all, to the definition of ‘express warranty’. We are promised that this definition is to be amended so that an express warranty applies to undertakings, assertions or statements in relation to the quality, performance or characteristics of the goods. The second amendment which I have said we will support relates to a manufacturer’s liability where his goods are of unmerchantable quality. That liability will be extended to the successors in title to a consumer. So the liability will not extend only when the first owner of the goods sells them to a second owner; it will remain with those goods when they are passed on, such as in the case of a gift passing from a father to a daughter.

I repeat that the Opposition welcomes each of those amendments. Essentially they are aimed at either clarifying the intention of the Bill or extending the coverage of the Bill in the favour of the consumer. The first amendment simply intends to ensure that the competitive test in section 4d corresponds with the test in section 45. Because I cannot find the place in the Bill at this stage I am not able to state the purport of the second amendment. I repeat that I will be asking further questions about it when the Bill is considered by the Legislation Committee.

In summary, the Opposition is not opposing the second reading stage of the Bill. We support the proposed extension of the Bill in relation to services and goods as they relate to section 45a. More will be said about the consumer protection section. We are looking forward to learning more about the Bill, and the latest amendments that have been announced in the House only in the last 20 minutes or so, when the Bill is considered by the Legislation Committee.

Mr DEAN:
Herbert

-The House has already been told what the first two brackets of amendments to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1978 are all about. In my contribution this afternoon I do not propose to traverse what has already been well covered. It is also well understood by honourable members on both sides of the House that the amendments foreshadowed this afternoon by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) will be discussed more fully in the Committee stage. Thus I do not propose to deal with those matters either. This afternoon I would like to spend a little time in the consideration of the consumer protection part of these amendments.

In order to understand these amendments and in order to understand the reasons for them, it will probably be useful if we spend a short time just considering the legal position as it presently applies. At the present time there are two ways in which a consumer who suffers damage for one reason or another through the supply of goods can sue. He can sue in tort. He can sue in contract.

A tort is described very briefly as a civil wrong. When it comes down to the sort of situation with which we are dealing, basically a tort occurs when there has been negligence on the part of some person. A manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumers of his product to ensure that that product is safe and fit. If he breaches that duty unreasonably he is guilty of negligence and he can be sued in tort. That situation applies between the ultimate consumer and the manufacturer or the importer, as the case may be. It also applies, of course, between the consumer and the retailer.

But when we talk about contract, the situation is significantly different, because contract is bound by what is called the doctrine of privity of contract, which provides that only parties to a contract can be sued. In the case of a consumer who buys goods from a retailer, that consumer has only one contract, namely, a contract with the retailer. He has no contract with the manufacturer or with the importer. Thus, if the consumer wants to sue in contract for the goods being unfit for the purpose for which they were bought, for example, he can sue only the retailer; he cannot sue, as the law presently stands, the manufacturer.

This leaves the consumer in a doubtful position. It is said that he can sue the retailer. That is well and good. But what happens if some little time after the transaction the retailer becomes insolvent? What happens if the retailer disappears, does a moonlight flit? In either case the consumer still cannot sue the manufacturer in contract. If the retailer has become insolvent or has disappeared, that is the end of the consumer’s remedy. He really cannot in contract sue anyone to recover his damages.

It is possible to sue the manufacturer by means of a rather cumbersome procedure. That procedure involves suing the retailer, first of all, and then the retailer in turn, hopefully, joining the manufacturer as a further party to the action. But that situation still depends on the retailer’s being solvent and being in a position where they can get at him. It is a somewhat cumbersome procedure and certainly adds to the cost of litigation.

We can probably illustrate all of that if we take a set of facts, which are rather similar, to a case which was actually fought out in the courts of this land some decades ago. Let us consider the situation of some underwear being manufactured and in the course of manufacture, by some negligence or by some defect in the manufacturing process, an excess amount of sulphides being left in the underwear. The result of that is to cause dermatitis to the wearer. As the law presently stands, in contract, the person who buys the underwear can sue only the retailer who sold it to him. On the other hand, in tort, because the manufacturer was negligent in the manufacturing process in allowing this excess amount of sulphides to remain in the underwear, the consumer can sue the manufacturer of that underwear.

Unfortunately there are some shortcomings in that also. In the first place, the person suing has to establish negligence. That may or may not be easy, but he certainly has to establish that there was a failure on the part of the manufacturer to take reasonable care in the manufacture of that product. He has to prove that failure to take reasonable care, that negligence. Secondly, it is uncertain whether in tort he can actually recover the value of the goods. After all, underwear is pretty expensive stuff. Hence we have these amendments before the House. In effect the amendments are designed to make the manufacturer liable in contract as though the manufacturer were a party to the contract, in certain cases. It is a situation which does not apply at the present time, but as I pointed out, it is necessary because -of the way that the law presently stands. At the same time, these amendments will ensure that the manufacturer or the importer cannot limit his obligations by contracting out of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Furthermore, the amendments make sure that the manufacturer cannot limit the extent of his warranties.

Turning to the basic provisions of this bit of consumer protection, which have been referred to already by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), in the first place where goods are bought by a consumer for a particular purpose and it turns out that the goods are not fit for that purpose and as a result the consumer suffers loss or damage, the consumer will be able to sue the manufacturer. Where the consumer has acquired goods by description in a trade magazine or something of that sort and the goods when supplied do not correspond with the description, again a right of action will exist. A third situation is where the goods are not of a merchantable quality- where there is some inherent defect in the goods- and, again, where the consumer suffers loss or damage, a right of action will accrue. A fourth situation is where the goods are supplied to a consumer by reference to a sample and again, where the bulk of the goods do not correspond to the sample, thereby causing loss to the consumer, the consumer will have a right of action. Another right of action will accrue where a manufacturer is unreasonably unable to provide facilities for repairs to or parts of goods. That is provided under the proposed new section 74f, which is a fairly long section.

It is important also to note that the Bill makes sure that where a corporation manufacturer fails to comply with an express warranty, again the consumer will be able to sue. That is important because it is a really doubtful area in the law as it presently stands. As I have said before, there has to be privity of contract before parties can sue under contract. All those warranties given out blithely by manufacturers may be difficult to enforce as the law presently stands. However, under this proposed new section it is ensured that the manufacturer can be sued in accordance with the terms of his express warranty.

As has been referred to by the honourable member for Adelaide, there will be a right on the part of the seller, if he is sued and has to pay up, to recover from the manufacturer or importer in circumstances where the consumer could have sued that manufacturer or importer in the first place. Those are in essence the consumer protection elements of this amending legislation.

The Government- any government of the day, no doubt, but certainly this Governmentacknowledges that it does have a responsibility in consumer affairs. At the same time, I draw attention to a statement made by the Minister, as reported in the Advertising Review for August this year:

The Government places high priority on encouraging a climate in which business can compete on an efficient basis to the ultimate benefit of the community and is particularly concerned to ensure that its regulatory activities do not add unnecessarily to the costs of industry.

I repeat some of those words because they are important:

The Government … is particularly concerned to ensure that its regulatory activities do not add unnecessarily to the costs of industry. ‘

The Minister acknowledged that he was conscious of the need to find the right balance between excessive government involvement in business matters and the protection of the rights of the consumers. It is worth noting that, as part of government responsibility in consumer affairs, the Government is concerned that the Act ought to be reviewed as necessary from time to time. The honourable member for Adelaide has acknowledged that amendments are necessary as circumstances change. So the Government has established the Trade Practices Consultative Committee, the purpose of which is to advise the

Minister on the practical operation of the Act and on whether it is having any unintended effect in the market place.

That Committee is charged specifically to give special attention to the problems of small businesses and to keep the Government well informed on how the Act is assisting them. The Minister is reported in the August edition of the Advertising Review to have said:

The Government believes that a viable small business sector is the backbone of our economy and the continued vitality of small business is essential for the maintenance of a soundly based and balanced economy in Australia.

A further step in which the Government is involved stems from a concern to ensure that the Government receives the best advice possible on consumer affairs issues. It is for this reason that the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council was established. A further area of constant consideration is in gaining co-operation with the States on consumer affairs matters because, as honourable members will be aware, the States have fairly significant legislation in the area of consumer affairs.

All that is well and good and as it should be, but we do have to be concerned about the problems of over-regulation, to which the Minister referred in the comments which I have quoted. In that regard I draw the attention of the House to the comments of Emeritus Professor Roland Thorp, in an address given in his capacity as Chairman of the Australian Consumers Association to the Third Annual Convention of the Australian Retailers Association in Sydney in September last year. Professor Thorp said:

We do not ever want legislation for the sake of it and I think consumerism is already running close to over legislation.

That, coming from a person involved in the Australian Consumers Association, is worth repeating:

We do not ever want legislation for the sake of it and I think consumerism is already running close to over legislation.

No doubt the difficulty always will be establishing the balance to which the Minister referred in the comments I alluded to earlier. But let us consider for a moment the dangers of excessive regulatory legislation. In the first place, the danger is that this sort of legislation will increasingly place impossible standards on manufacturers, on businessmen, on people in the supply section of the community. After all, in the law of tort, to which I referred earlier, negligence arises where there has been a failure to take reasonable care. Yet the sort of legislation that we are contemplating today could be said to go perhaps slightly further than that and to impose a much more perfect standard- a higher standard- on the manufacturer. As I have said, for the reasons outlined earlier, that is well and good, but there is a danger in regulatory legislation creating too high a standard, a standard with which it becomes unreasonable to expect anybody to be able to comply. That has to be watched constantly.

A second problem is that regulatory legislation involves cost, which ultimately is passed on to the consumer. For example, if we are going to impose higher standards on business requiring it to produce goods of the highest possible standard, the manufacturing process has to be watched extremely carefully. That can undoubtedly add to the cost of the process. More than that, if higher standards are imposed, by regulation, on business and industry, public risk insurance premiums, for example, will increase. They are two examples of the way in which imposing too high a set of standards will involve cost which has to be passed on to the consumer. Then one has to ask: Is the cost worth it? Is the community really getting value for money in imposing those higher standards? There is a very real danger that the community is not.

Probably an even more important aspect than the two points that I have just mentioned concerns what we might call the carrot and the stick situation. It is very easy to bring down regulatory legislation which, in effect, forces manufacturers and business to do something; but surely, as a matter of principle, it is better to try the carrot approach, better to try to encourage business, to encourage manufacturers, to be aware of their standards, of their responsibilities to educate consumers so that they in turn will know what they want and what to look for; to encourage them as much as possible, to improve their own standards, and how well their manufacturing processes work. It is better to try to encourage business and manufacturers generally to undertake themselves a consistent search for ways in which to provide the best possible deal for the consumer, better for themselves and for the country generally.

So in all of this area it is useful if we can bear in mind the need to avoid the stick approach through regulatory legislation and consider whether the carrot approach, the encouragement of proper research and proper standards of care, is the better approach. I would suggest that it is.

I end by quoting from the second reading speech of the Minister, whose remarks reinforce the comments I have just made. The Minister said:

The Government is determined, however, that trade and commerce in this country will not be hindered by overregulation.

I am not, of course, in a position to foreshadow what further changes in the Trade Practices legislation might be brought down. The honourable member for Adelaide is concerned about its being watered down but, in turn, could I just suggest to him that when further amending legislation is brought down its purpose should be to ensure that trade and commerce in this country will not be hindered by over-regulation.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean) is concerned about trade and industry being over-governed, or hindered by overintervention by the Government. On this side of the chamber we are more concerned with consumer protection being hindered by over-active government. That is exactly our objection to this Bill. Of course, we support the Trade Practices Act in principle, but are concerned that the proposed amendments to it will reduce the consumer protection which it affords.

The Trade Practices Act, which was pioneered by the Labor Government in 1974 strengthened considerably the position of consumers, relative to producers and distributors. Apart from the major reforms in the field of consumer protection, the Act’s most important provisions relate to restrictive trading, which was made illegal. The Act has the double purpose of benefiting the public as ultimate consumers, as well as aiding the competitiveness of business in general. As one might expect with such legislation, the attitude of the Liberal and National Country parties was completely obstructive. During the 1975 general election campaign, the then caretaker Prime Minister derided the Trade Practices Commission, established under the terms of the Act, as one of the octopi that had been created by the Labor Government to strangle business. That, of course was nothing like the truth. There was talk of abolishing large sections of the Act, especially the provisions dealing with anticompetitive trading. But it would seem that the responsibilities of office have, to some extent at least, tempered the views of many members of the Government in relation to this Act. This is not to say of course, that the Government welcomes the constructive work undertaken by the Trade Practices Commission. Far from it. The Commission is starved of staff and funds. Its opportunities to venture into the market place, to ascertain what is happening, have been circumscribed by the Government’s mean-spirited approach in providing funds. In this respect, it is worth quoting from the third annual report of the Trade Practices Commission, which is for the financial year 1976-77:

The ceilings have forced a progressive decline of the Commission ‘s staff to 207 at 30 June 1 977 -

That represented a reduction from the number of 220 which had been reached in October 1 975- and the numbers will have to decline further. These numbers include all support staff- typing and secretarial, library, records and other management services. Staff ceilings may be general to the Public Service, but they bite harder on a new organisation whose role is developing and whose work is expanding.

Indeed, it is a telling indictment of the cavalier approach by this Government in respect of consumer protection and eliminating anticompetitive aspects of business trading. If the Government were serious about providing an efficient instrumentality and looking after the legitimate interests that I have described, it would not be cutting back savagely on staff as the Commission’s responsibilities become greater and more demanding.

I turn now to the amendments embodied in this Bill. The most serious doubt that I have on this Bill concerns the possible further erosion of the consumer protection aspects of the legislation. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) has decided to extend the present exception, from the prohibition in section 45a of the Act, of price fixing for joint ventures relating to services. He has said that the Government has decided on this course of action merely to tidy up an anomaly so that the proposed exceptions in relation to services will correspond with that relating to goods. However, there is no good reason, apart from pressure from the large corporations which back this Government, to pursue the further weakening of the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Last year the Minister introduced an amendment excepting joint ventures relating to goods from the provisions of section 45a of the Act, and the Opposition opposed that amendment. In fact the amendment that was carried last year and the amendment that is being debated now, if carried, will weaken severely the basic thrust of the Trade Practices legislation. The Minister has bowed to pressure from IBM Australia Ltd, the computer company, which has launched a campaign against certain sections of the Trade Practices Act.

Computer companies had refused to write new contracts under the original Act provisions, because they would have been liable to pay damages that might have flowed from defective goods or services. The limitations proposed by this Bill, and the amendments that were debated and carried last November, substantially alter the original Act. These alterations are not designed to rectify legislative faults in the Act, but rather to eliminate certain liabilities in respect of goods and services provided by producers and suppliers. By contrast, in America, the so-called bastion of free enterprise, companies are fully liable for their goods and services. If they want protection against loss caused by their product failures they take out insurance.

I do not know whether they take out insurance against the shortcomings of the underwear they sell or perhaps the dermatitis that may be caused by sulphides. That is something which the honourable member for Herbert might elucidate later. Under this legislation producers are merely liable to the extent of repairing or replacing faulty products. They are not responsible for the damage or loss that may be caused to a company should a certain machine, for example, cease to function or, because of faulty manufacture, constantly breaking down. Computer companies could have been liable for thousands of dollars in damages because of loss of profits caused to a company should their computer break down. Perhaps it is little wonder that such a campaign has been waged by the computer companies on this issue, and smaller wonder that the Minister has bowed to the pressure. But the question that we must consider is: Should companies be liable for the effect caused by their faulty manufactures? There seems to be to be an unassailable reason for arguing for the affirmative in respect of this issue.

Mr colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) cogently expounded on this point last November when he said:

It is not good enough just to talk about the question of replacing the machine or repairing the goods. What about the damage the person suffers as a consequence of the failure of the machine or the failure to maintain the warranty? a consequential damage is involved. That person could go broke because of this liability. We do not see that happening in the international sphere. These people are unlikely to go broke. They have a multi-million dollar asset backing.

These words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should really be heeded by the Government on this issue. Quite simply, the small business community in Australia is being deprived of the protection afforded by the original Act. The Government has decided to sell out the small business community and to support the dictates of computer companies like IBM -

Mr Fife:

-What rubbish!

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister might think it is rubbish. I do not think that the small business community does. As the IBM- Facom affair demonstrated, IBM seems to have inordinate influence over many members of this Government.

Mr Dean:

– Goodness me!

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The memories of honourable members opposite are short if they cannot remember the IBM-Facom affair. We on this side of the House remember it vividly and I am sure the general public, which recently has been registering great disapproval of the Government’s credibility in the community, thinks likewise. The general public certainly remembers. The result of acceptance of the amendment under discussion might well be to harm the small business community in Australia and to limit the damages which may have had to be paid by the computer manufacturers. The result of the Government’s action is that the consumer will suffer detriment. The consumer will have to bear the cost and that will be the end of the story. It is a situation which is hardly fair and reasonable. As a matter of natural justice the common law normally requires that a product which is bought should meet the purpose for which it is specified. The amendment embodied in this Bill strikes against this proposition. The proposal that a joint venture for the supply of services should be exempted from the provisions of the original Act is in many respects even worse than what was enacted in respect of goods by the Government’s amendments last year. A faulty service or the non-performance of a service can be even more harmful to a company than the effect of a faulty machine.

Numerous examples spring to mind. Suppose a construction company which provides necessary raw materials contracts with a cement mining company to produce a quantity of cement. A delay in the production, faulty production or the production of cement not up to a certain prescribed standard conceivably could cause thousands of dollars worth of damage. Yet because of this amendment the cement mixing company may be liable for producing only more or better cement. It might be argued against what I have said that this Bill cannot exclude provisions in a contract where the consumer indicated a specific purpose, but this is not so clear according to this Bill. Perhaps a court can determine what is fair and reasonable but the

Government can evade this area of legal contention by dropping or improving the amendment now before the House.

Another aspect of the Bill which concerns me is the proposal that the Minister may consent to a member of the Trade Practices Commission engaging in paid employment outside the duties of his office. As a general principle there is much to commend this idea, but there are several grounds for expressing reservations. In view of Press reports early this year that the Trade Practices Commission is fighting for its life because of Government attempts to cut back on the powers of the Commission- a threat so serious that the Chairman of the Commission, Mr R. M. Bannerman, requested staff to prepare papers justifying the Commission’s existence- it is worth while examining the possible motives behind this particular amendment. The Government’s intention could well be to reduce the commissioners to the level of part time practitioners not engaged in the full time job of overviewing the responsibilities of the Commission.

Mr Fife:

– Are you being serious now?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Very serious. Apart from this consideration there could be problems in respect of conflict of interests between the public and private interests of a commissioner. This could be overcome partly by the public disclosure of what private interests and employment a commissioner may enjoy while a member of the Trade Practices Commission. But there is no indication that the Government will move in this direction. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill, but this should not disguise the fact that the Opposition has some serious misgivings about passing it. We deplore the fact that the Government’s amendments weaken even more what was originally a very responsible piece of consumer protection legislation that was introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government. That is probably the secret of the situation. The fact that the original Bill was introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government is probably a very good reason why the present Government is reducing its powers.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-The closing remarks of the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) deserve some comment. If this Government were particularly concerned about the effect of the original legislation introduced by the Labor Government in 1974 and wanted no part of it the best way to overcome this concern would be to remove it from the statute book and not to water it down, as the honourable member is suggesting would be the case with the passing of this Bill. I do not believe that the Bill presented in 1974 by the Labor Government was intended to cover all the aspects of consumer protection that people in the electorate thought it might or indeed to meet the expectations of the people at that time. I know that many fears were held by many of our manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers as to what the actual effect of the legislation would be. In the fullness of time the original legislation has had to be amended four times. I do not believe that all these changes have been made in the terms of office of the present Government.

This Bill is the fifth amendment to the original legislation. This probably indicates that the amendments have been introduced not just because of changing times or in the areas of review mentioned by the Swanson Committee in its report in 1976 but possibly because the impossible is trying to be achieved by this legislation. I cannot conceive of this legislation covering all aspects of consumer protection. In fact, it has its limitations within the ceilings it imposes in its provisions as to who can seek protection under it and who cannot. Many people would have liked to have been afforded protection as consumers in relation to the parts of the legislation amended last year, but this was denied them. I feel that any person who was a member of the Federal Parliament or in the Labor Government in 1974 would not have felt then that the legislation, as innovative as it was then and as necessary as it was to protect consumers within some aspects of the private enterprise or capitalist system, would be the ultimate measure of consumer protection for a nation such as Australia. That brings me to the point that Australia seems to find itself almost in a contradictory situation in that on the one hand fairly massive protection is given to manufacturing industries in order to allow them to survive and on the other we try to implement a law such as this one to give protection to the consumer. It just does not seem to balance up.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) was significant in many ways. It was significant not only for the fact that it introduced amendments to strengthen the principal Act and the rights of consumers in so many other directions but also because of the comment that he made, which I read into Hansard again. He said:

It is the policy of the Government that the Trade Practices Act operate even-handedly and be conducive to the sensible regulation of business activity, fair trading and freedom in Australian trade and commerce. The Government is determined, however, that trade and commerce in this country will not be hindered by over-regulation.

In fact the type of protection that the Labor Government might have felt was necessary would have been an over-regulation, a discipline too great for the consumers and manufacturers of Australia to bear. I think it is important to realise in regard to this aspect of over-regulation that, apart from the large manufacturers, retailers and importers that this legislation seeks to deal with, there are small businesses which have a vital part to play within the Austraiian community, not only in relation to the economy but also in relation to the aspect of employment, and which we cannot over-regulate.

Many situations have been referred to in this debate so far. Under the Trade Practices Act it is regarded as collusion for certain industries to rationalise their activities and they are prevented from doing so because of the effects of the Act. Yet rationalisation of Australian industry is absolutely necessary in so many ways. I am not suggesting that the motor vehicle industry is one of them. But surely somewhere along the way some rationalisation will be to the benefit not only of Australia but also ultimately the consumer. After all, we are looking at this legislation as being for consumer protection; yet within its framework and provisions this Act denies the right to do the sensible thing in so many ways, particularly in respect of what I have just mentioned- the merging of firms because of the economy of costs and in many cases to prevent a business closing up completely. Surely it would be in the national interests for some exemption to be given within the framework of this legislation.

These provisions will be referred to a legislation committee at a later date. They will be canvassed one by one at that time. I believe that the legislation committee will be the proper place for any comment to be made. It is not my intention to state what will be said then. I just say, in connection with some of the remarks of the previous speaker, that the legislation lacks teeth because of the inability of the Government to fund and staff a proper commission. Again, this might be a reflection on the fact that the Act is expecting too much. If that is so, perhaps amendments will be brought forward on a fairly regular basis to try to plug the loopholes or the deficiencies as they arise.

I come back to the point that Australia might not be ready for the ultimate and total protection which some people want for the consumer. In fact if the legislation gave ultimate and total protection we could regard it only as a socialist piece of legislation. Competition must be within the market place. Competition in the market place means competition for the consumers too. Certainly the Act has been of benefit in regulating many of the inadequacies of the past and the amendments now proposed are aimed at trying to improve it a little further. Realising that the Bill will be referred to a legislation committee, I give the amendments it contains my full support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Motion (by Mr Fife for Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That this Bill be referred to a legislation committee for report by 14 November 1978.

page 1931

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1978-79

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 10 October.

Schedule 2.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $95,907,000.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– Ten minutes is not enough time in which to speak on such an important subject and the remainder of my time has been reduced to a few brief moments because of the disruptions caused the other day by Labor obstructionists, and in particular the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). He was heard in relative silence in spite of his refusal to talk on the subject under debate. We on this side of the House understand his frustration and accept, however reluctantly, his stand. It must be very hard for the honourable member for Reid to give up his seat for Mr Wran and to realise that his hard Left socialist tirades will not be heard in the future in this Parliament. The honourable member for Reid has been a hard slogger for the socialist Labor Party and having to step aside for another aspiring leader must hurt deeply. This Parliament will not be left without a fight for we will see the blood start flowing again in the Labor leadership battles. Mr Wran, Mr Hawke and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) will be clawing their ways over the bodies of members of their front bench in their selfish fight to replace their present ineffectual leader.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for Hotham to the fact that the Committee is considering the expenditure of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I request the honourable member to direct his remarks to that subject.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:

-In the minutes I have left I want to summarise what I had intended to say on these estimates. We will continue to help the Aborigine and will help him to help himself and to fit in with the mainstream of Australian life. The sign that perhaps we have been successful in our aim to help will lie in the reduction in aid necessary and the eventual disbandment of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The physical and mental health of the Aborigine will improve only when all aspects of health and environment are improved. Greater realisation of where funds can best be spent is shown by these estimates. We can see that the Government is pushing ahead with its policy of Aboriginal self-determination.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-In this morning’s Melbourne Age the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Anthony) was quoted as saying that as far as this Government is concerned neither the Aboriginal people, whom he saw as a manipulated minority, nor anyone else in Australia will interfere with the Government’s determination to mine uranium. From the time the Government decided to mine uranium it was inevitable that a time would come when the concerns of the Aboriginal people about their land rights and the environment would conflict with the perceived policy of the Government. I think it was clear to all that we would hear the statement that was made this morning by the Deputy Prime Minister. There is nothing new or novel about it. What is interesting -

Mr Roger Johnston:

– I raise a point of order. I was called to order because I was not keeping to the subject. I think it would be appropriate to remind the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that he is not talking about the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no substance to the point of order. The debate on the Estimates has tended to become more wide ranging than I am sure was the original intention. The convention of the House is to give some latitude to members speaking to the Estimates. As I have understood the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, to this stage they relate to the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr Holding:

– I point out to the House -

Mr Roger Johnston:

– I raise another point of order. Mr Chairman, therefore I ask: Why was I called to order? My speech may have been wideranging, but I was certainly on the subject.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member for Hotham is not free to canvass the ruling of the Chair. It was the opinion of the Chair at the time of the honourable member for Hotham ‘s being brought to order that his remarks were not relevant. I regard the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports at this stage as not irrelevant. I call upon him to proceed.

Mr HOLDING:

– In pursuance of its policy the Government would be within its rights to take the position which has been stated by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is a matter of concern, however, that over the last fortnight, in pursuance of the Government’s determination to mine uranium, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have produced what might be described as a conspiracy theory- an allegation that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have been manipulated by members of the Labor Party to adopt positions which were not genuinely their own on the whole question of uranium mining. That is a serious allegation. In fact it is scandalous because, having all the resources of the Commonwealth available to it, no evidence of any substance has been produced by the Government to support it. The first allegation was directed at the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) who explained in this House that he had sent a member of his staff to Darwin for the purpose of seeking information for him. That statement by the honourable member for Reid has not been contradicted and it has not been denied.

Last week a second attempt was made to establish this conspiracy theory, and what a contemptible and mean exercise it was. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is at the table, produced at Question Time a personal letter from Dr Everingham to the Leader of the Aboriginal -

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Chair is now having a little difficulty in relating the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr HOLDING:

– I am dealing with the whole question of government policy covered by these estimates. I assure you that I will link these remarks with the estimates of the Department at a later date.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will appreciate it if you do.

Mr HOLDING:

– The second aspect of the conspiracy theory rested upon a personal letter from a member of this House to Mr Yunupingu. On any fair reading of it one can only say that it is a highly personal document from a man who is sensitive and honest and that it was written to a person whom he regarded as his friend. He was concerned to give words of advice and encouragement and an offer of assistance. I do not believe the Minister did himself or the Government any credit in trying to make that the second leg of his much vaunted conspiracy theory. I believe that there is certainly in at least one area of Australia a conspiracy against the rights and the interests of the Aboriginal people. I refer to the scandalous situation that now exists at Aurukun and Mornington Island as members of this Government- and supporters of the Liberal Party- prominent members in this chamber and the Senate- have on many occasions raised with the Minister and the Government the need for this Government to support the Aboriginal people in those areas. That has been the view of the Uniting Church in Australia; it has been the subject of countless requests from the Aboriginal people themselves; and finally, it has even been the subject of comment by the chairman of the Government parties’ committee which recently visited Aurukun and Mornington Island.

I want to make this point to the Minister: When the plight of the people at Aurukun and Mornington Island was first raised, it was raised not because of any actions taken by the people and not because of any actions taken by the Uniting Church. It was raised as a result of a fairly predatory exercise taken on behalf of the Queensland Government. When that situation first arose the Minister acted with some promptness and indicated that it was his view and the Government’s view that the Government would stand by the people at Aurukun and Mornington Island. He said: . . Aboriginals should be allowed to decide for themselves their own futures. It is a policy of self-management and freedom of choice. In Aurukun this freedom takes the form of decentralisation- the wish of the Aboriginal people to leave large and artificial settlements and make for themselves a life in the bush in their traditional country, usually in small clan groups.

A whole series of statements has been made by the Minister and the Prime Minister which supports that general principle. It is all very well to make fine statements in this chamber but the Aboriginal people want to live at Aurukun and Mornington Island.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I again remind the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that he has not mentioned expenditure, estimates or any aspect of this debate. He is trying to bring up a political subject that has nothing to do with the debate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member for Melbourne Ports is addressing the question of Aboriginal affairs. Whilst it is a little difficult to establish that he is rigidly addressing himself to the nominal estimates before the Committee, the Chair feels that he has not departed from the practices that have been established in the chamber in this type of debate.

Mr HOLDING:

– I point out to the chamber that the attitude of the Queensland Government has been very well displayed in statements made by both the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Minister for Local Government, Mr Hinze. In the Courier-Mail of 29 August 1978 a report stated that as far as Mr Hinze was concerned his appointment of Mr Brown as the administrator of the local authorities would give Mr Brown the power to decide who stayed at Aurukun and Mornington Island. Mr Hinze went on to state that as far as he was concerned dropouts, hangers-on and agitators at Aurukun, as defined by him and presumably as interpreted by Mr Brown, would be excluded from the settlement. Of course that was a matter of some real concern to the Aboriginal residents. They sent a telegram to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What was his reaction? This is the man who will defend the Aboriginal people against conspiracy. His reaction was to send back a telegram advising the Aboriginal people that Mr Brown would be watched by him, and that if they had any worries they could take up the matter with the Queensland Ombudsman.

The policy of the Queensland Government is one of genocide as it is being applied at Auruku n and Mornington Island. The actions of this Minister in refusing to intervene significantly, despite a range of requests, to defend the rights of the Aboriginal people in this area is a national calamity and disgrace. I simply contrast the action of the Minister who refuses to involve himself on behalf of Aboriginal people who are threatened with extinction but spends his time inventing conspiracies in the Northern Territory where he acts as the political lickspittle for the Prime Minister who urges him on in a course of conduct which can be described only as disgraceful.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– This debate has ranged from matters directly related to the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs with a discussion of the appropriations for the current financial year to points taken by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) concerning the role of the negotiator Stephen Zorn during negotiations relating to the Ranger agreement and statements by the honourable member for

Reid (Mr Uren) concerning recent events surrounding the actions of the Northern Land Council in seeking to obtain a ratification of the agreement that was negotiated between the Commonwealth and that Council. Let me therefore, within the time that is available to me, take up some of those matters. Firstly, the matter which was raised by the honourable member for Reid was picked up again today by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding). I wish to refer to an article that appeared in the Canberra Times of 13 September 1978. It was written by Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, the Canberra Times Indian correspondent who visited Australia recently. The article concerns particularly the position of Aboriginals in relation to uranium mining. He made some very pertinent observations concerning the matters that I raised in this chamber at Question Time on Wednesday and Thursday last week and which were raised by the honourable member for Reid in his contribution to this debate. Mr Datta-Ray states:

In a sense, I felt, that the anguished debate over uranium mining has clouded the issue and distracted attention from the crux of the matter. Dr Joe Camilleri, Dr Geoffrey Moseley, the conservationists and environmentalists, the pacifists and the anti-nuclear lobby, all those dedicated groups of progressive young people I met in Canberra under the aegis of the Labor Party’s Mr Frank Muller, may or may not have a valid case. That is beside the point. What is definitely not is that they are pressing Aboriginal land rights only and exclusively in support of their own campaign against the mining companies and the Government’s uranium export policy.

I have no doubt but that if the Aborigines were to turn round tomorrow and announce that they welcome uranium exploration, these very champions would do a volte-face and insist with equal vehemence that the indigenous people have no prescriptive claim over unalienated Crown lands.

That is precisely the point that I was making last week. It is precisely the point that was made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) in the letter that he wrote to the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. I also refer honourable members of the Opposition as well as members on my side of the chamber to the second reading speech of the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Les Johnson, on 16 October 1975 when the Whitlam Government introduced its Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill 1975. He stated:

I hope that it will not be necessary to invoke the national interest provisions of this Bill, and that with goodwill from all parties- the Aboriginal landowners, the prospective miners, environmental interests and the Government- a reasonable and effective solution can in most cases be found to protect the Aboriginal interests and to meet desirable national development goals.

I invite any honourable member to test what this Government did in August last year in its uranium decisions in all these areasenvironment, Aboriginal interests and development- against this statement by the then Labor Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I say without hesitation that the decisions that we have made and our efforts in seeking to balance all these interests have been made with the goodwill of all parties. The Aboriginal interests can be protected at the same dme as desirable national development goals are achieved. I invite honourable members to listen also to what was said further in that second reading speech. Mr Les Johnson said: the vast substantial increase in the national welfare which could be derived from development of the Ranger project could not lightly be overlooked. Should the Government feel obliged to invoke the national interest provisions in the Bill in view of these factors, discussions would be held with those affected. These discussions would include the matter of royalties. I should add that any decision to proceed with the development of the Ranger project will depend upon the Government’s consideration of the findings of the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry which is now taking place.

They are precisely the kinds of considerations which this Government had in mind when making its decision in August 1977. 1 again ask any honourable member in this House to test what we, as a government, did in August 1977 and have done since then pursuant to the provisions of the Aboriginal land rights legislation against the second reading speech of the then Labor Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

I touch upon one other statement that was made by the honourable member for Reid. It concerns the criticism by the honourable member of Mr Alex Bishaw, the Manager of the Northern Land Council. The fact is that Mr Bishaw has had a long and respected career in Aboriginal affairs within the Northern Territory. He holds the belief that those who are employed to advise Aboriginal people have a responsibility to put a balanced presentation of the facts in respect of any issue so that the Aboriginals being advised can make an informed decision, based on objective advice. The honourable member for Reid said that Mr Bishaw was a member of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. He holds no such position. He in fact gave away the security of his position in the Public Service to undertake service for the Aboriginal people with the Northern Land Council. I understand that Mr Speaker wishes to come into the chamber before the sitting is suspended. Therefore, I think that perhaps we should report progress.

Progress reported.

page 1934

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I move:

This matter is of the utmost importance. Some time ago it even warranted comment by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) of this country. We make no allegations against the person involved -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat for a moment. I wish to make a statement on another matter.

page 1934

PRIVILEGE

Mr SPEAKER:

-A matter of privilege was raised this afternoon. I always like to dispose of an issue of privilege as soon as possible. That is the reason I came into the chamber and the Committee went into plenary session. I interrupted the honourable member for Port Adelaide. In any event he would have been interrupted at 6 o’clock. It is now 30 seconds to 6 o’clock. For the benefit of those honourable members who raised the issue of privilege I would like to give my decision before the suspension of the sitting for dinner so that if they wish to pursue the matters, which they are entitled to do, they will know what my decision is. I interrupted the honourable member for Port Adelaide for that purpose.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, will the honourable member for Port Adelaide have the call immediately after the resumption of the sitting?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes. I interrupted the honourable member for the purpose of disposing of the matter of privilege. At the commencement of the sitting today the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) raised as a matter of privilege a newspaper article which appeared in the Sun-Herald on 15 October, headed: Lib MPs talk of Party ‘intimidation’. The honourable member read part of the article, which contained two points. The first was that according to the newspaper report some person had removed and photocopied Hansard ‘greens’ of a speech by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) from his desk without his authority. The second point of the report was that attempts were being made to deter the honourable member for Franklin from publicly criticising the Government. The honourable member for Newcastle has based his matter of privilege entirely upon the published reports to which I have referred. No complaint has been made by the honourable member for Franklin. Any attempt by improper means to influence a member in his parliamentary conduct has always been regarded as a breach of privilege. It has always been held that any threat or attempt to influence members other than by argument constitutes a breach of privilege. Had the honourable member for Franklin raised the matter and verified the facts alleged in the newspaper report, the case may have been a good deal more substantial. He has not done so. On the contrary, he has informed me that he was not intimidated. He has written to me in the following terms:

Mr Speaker,

It has never been my intention to have the matter raised by the honourable member for Newcastle referred to the Privileges Committee. Further, it should be noted that the Greens’ of my speech were never removed from my room, and I hereby request that the matter be not proceeded with. I was not intimidated.

The letter was signed ‘B. J. Goodluck’. In the circumstances, I rule that a prima facie case has not been made out.

The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) referred me to another publication by Mr Laurie Oakes dated 18 October which he said I should consider in relation to the matter. I have considered that report. It does not change my conclusion. Accepting that the Hansard ‘green’ of the honourable member for Franklin was removed from his desk without authority, I am bound to say that that action contravenes the practices of the House. Any paper on any member’s desk should not be interfered with in any way without the direct authority of that member.

Sitting suspended from 6.3 to 8 p.m.

page 1935

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Suspension of Standing Orders

Debate resumed.

Mr YOUNG:

-Mr Speaker, the matter I raise tonight is a matter of public record. A number of articles have been written about the business affairs of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). In fact, one was written this week in the Laurie Oakes Report. I understand that another article is to be published. As a consequence of these matters I moved prior to the suspension of the sitting:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Primary Industry from making a full statement to the Parliament about his business affairs, to reassure the public that he is not leaving the country in haste in order to avoid involvement and public comment on such matters in the Parliament tomorrow.

It would be unthinkable for the Government to make a rash decision this evening that would lead to the Minister for Primary Industry leaving this country tonight or first thing in the morning when questions could be asked of him tomorrow. As I have said, it is a matter of public record. The National Times told us on Sunday that the Minister was thinking of making a statement to the Parliament prior to any report that may be brought down by the New South Wales Government. Let me go over some of the matters that have been raised on this question. Firstly -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I interrupt the honourable gentleman to inform him that I will not permit him to go through the matters that have been raised. The question before the House is the suspension of Standing Orders. The honourable gentleman will remain relevant as to why the Standing Orders should be suspended.

Mr YOUNG:

- Mr Speaker, in our opinion the Standing Orders must be suspended because that is the only way in which we can get an explanation from the Minister about the matter that has brought about the announcement of this rush trip to the United States by the Minister. We on this side of the House believe that it is the result of the news that the Bulletin will print tomorrow an article regarding the business affairs of the Minister. Obviously we are entitled to have a debate on this matter. In fact, at the moment we are not asking for a debate; we are asking the Minister, who has now had one year in which to do so, to make a statement to the Parliament on this subject. He has already made himself subject to television interviews, but as a senior Minister of the Government and in accordance with the standards which he and all his colleagues tried to set over the past few years he should be making an explanation in the Parliament about these allegations.

As I have said, the matter is no great secret. People have been discussing it for a long time. The New South Wales Government has announced that it will conduct an investigation into the matter. The Minister for Primary Industry is not answerable to the New South Wales Government in his normal political life, he is answerable to this Parliament, in accordance with the standards which he himself set. He has already made himself available to be interviewed on television. He has already made a public affair of the matter that we are raising tonight. It is no good the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) making arrangements to have the Minister whiz overseas at a minute’s notice, without any appointments being made, because he may be subject to some embarrassment by an article that is to appear in the Bulletin tomorrow. This is a matter for the national Parliament.

Mr Haslem:
Mr YOUNG:

– If honourable member’s opposite want to know why they should read in the Hansard record all the things that the Minister for Primary Industry has been saying over the years about members of the Labor Party. That is why. It is as simple as that. Honourable members opposite cannot bury their heads in the sand about standards which the Minister himself has set. If there are answers to be given, in his own interest those answers have to be given in the national Parliament of Australia- not in the United States, not in the Parliament of New South Wales, but right here. The Minister has had one year to answer the allegations. Can honourable members imagine what would happen if the Minister for Primary Industry arrived in the United States in 24 hours’ time with the question raised in this Parliament tonight being unanswered? What do honourable members think the American political people are going to think about that? This matter must be cleared up before he leaves Australia. The arrangements have been made only because of what is going to appear tomorrow. That is not good enough for honourable members on this side of the House.

Mr Neil:

– You are scraping the barrel.

Mr YOUNG:

– The honourable member says that I am scraping the bottom of the barrel. I will tell him something. That is where the Government got its Ministers. They set the standard for this sort of thing. They accused every Minister in the Labor Government of having involved himself in all sorts of conspiracies. Explanations were given by them and no accusation against any of them was found to be true, but here we have a Minister who finds it convenient to get his airline ticket this afternoon to leave for the United States so that he will not have to answer questions. All we are asking him to do is to abide by the standard which he said was so necessary for a Labor government. Why have one set of rules for a Labor government and another set of rules for a Liberal-National Country Party government? The Minister has taken many opportunities to raise the business affairs, conduct or ethics of members on this side of the House while in and out of government. He should not shun his own responsibility, his own standards. He prefers things to be done that way. Tonight the Parliament is rife with the rumour that we have to get the Minister for Primary Industry out of Australia.

Mr Goodluck:

– That is not true.

Mr YOUNG:

-The Acting Foreign Minister has got to be taken out of Australia in order that he will not be here tomorrow to answer questions. That is what it is all about. He set the standard.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think the honourable member for Franklin is in it, too, the way he is carrying on.

Mr Goodluck:

– I would be proud to be involved with the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Franklin will remain silent. The honourable member for Hindmarsh will find himself out of it, not in it, if he does not remain silent.

Mr YOUNG:

– This is the only way in which the people can be satisfied that the Minister for Primary Industry is going overseas without any stigma at all attached to him. That is all we are asking. The matter is quite simple. It is on public record. He has made himself available to appear on television. We may not appear before a television audience. We may not make ourselves readily available to Michael Willesee or some of the other people who want to conduct an interview. But we are entitled to know the situation and we are entitled to a full statement from the Minister about his business affairs so that a cloud will not be hanging over one of the most senior Ministers of this Government. It is extremely important that the Standing Orders be suspended so that the Minister can make a statement and we can listen to it. Perhaps some questions would arise out of what he said. Perhaps some of the things that have been printed already are incorrect. Perhaps some further questions have to be asked in relation to the answers that he gave on the Willesee program about its not being our business, which is what he said on the Willesee program.

Mr Goodluck:

– Exactly.

Mr YOUNG:

-The honourable member for Franklin, who has now decided to regroup with the Government, is telling us that it is none of our business. What strange behaviour it is to say that it is none of our business, that the people of Australia are not entitled to know about the business affairs of the Minister. They have been printed in every newspaper in Australia and they have been made public on television. The members of this Parliament more than anybody else are entitled to know about them. Who above the members of the national Parliament are entitled to know or to have a full statement from the Minister?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide is repeating himself.

Mr YOUNG:

– It is a pity that the Minister would not repeat himself- in here.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will proceed with his argument and not repeat himself.

Mr YOUNG:

-We want to know tonight that the Minister for Primary Industry will not be sent overseas until such time as that statement has been made in the Parliament. It may be necessary for me to repeat myself in order that the Government will understand. The present Government’s tactics when the Labor Party was in government were to keep saying things in the hope that sometimes members of the public would believe them. They set the standards. Honourable members opposite should now comply with the standards that they set and require the Minister to make the statement to the Parliament.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I second the motion. The Opposition moved this motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders to give the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) a chance to make a statement this evening before his visit to the United States of America. We did so because there is rumour in the gallery of the Parliament and in the lobbies that a certain magazine will chronicle charges against the Minister for Primary Industry which, as a senior Minister in this Government, he will be obliged to answer. On 2 1 November last year on the AM program the Minister said:

Our (the Government’s) standards are very high indeed, and the standards that I have set, I believe, maintain exactly the same standards as anyone would wish a person in high public office to set.

Let the Minister live by his words. We are giving him the opportunity to make a statement in the Parliament fully disclosing the issues which will be raised this week in the Press and which probably are under investigation by the New South Wales Attorney-General’s Department. We on this side of the House were subjected to pressures and attacks by honourable members opposite on this very question of ministerial propriety and standards. We now expect those standards to be observed. There should be no rush trips on behalf of the beef industry to the United States to save the bacon of the Minister for Primary Industry. Rather there should be an explanation from him of his personal affairs.

Mr Goodluck:

– Like what you said about me in Tasmania.

Mr KEATING:

– Go and climb back into your apple!

Mr Goodluck:

– You can say it but you cannot take it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Franklin will restrain himself.

Mr KEATING:

– We on this side of the House require the Minister to deal with the charges which have been laid against him and those which will be laid against him in the Bulletin this week.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. Mr Speaker, very properly you stopped me from shouting and carrying on but you do not seem to be able to hear the shouting of this man here, the honourable member for Franklin.

Mr Goodluck:

- Mr Speaker, it is my normal voice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Franklin will remain silent. We are accustomed to a higher standard of performance from the honourable member for Hindmarsh. We appreciate it very much. I now ask the honourable member for Franklin to cease interjecting, absolutely.

Mr KEATING:

– It has been brought to the notice of the Opposition that the Minister has no appointments arranged at this moment in the United States. There is no need for him to leave the Parliament this evening and depart for the United States tomorrow without making a complete statement to the Parliament on his personal affairs. If the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) were observing the proper standards, he would require the Minister to make such a statement and would prohibit him leaving the country tomorrow on this overseas junket which he has undertaken very conveniently to escape the public eye. Apparently it is a trick of the front bench of the Liberal-National Country Party Government -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will remain relevant to the question of the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr KEATING:

– It is an apparent ploy of Ministers opposite to leave the country when there are matters of great public importance to be discussed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has seconded a motion relating to the Minister for Primary Industry, not to other people, and is speaking to that motion.

Mr KEATING:

-The Minister should make a statement now while the opportunity is presented to him. The suspension of Standing Orders has been moved by the Opposition to facilitate a statement by him. He knows that matters relating to his personal affairs will be published this week. He knows that his personal affairs are being scrutinised by the New South Wales Attorney-General’s Department. The Prime Minister should require him to make a statement, a full disclosure of his involvement in these affairs, to the Parliament so that the kind of standards the Minister says he is prepared to set are, in fact, set and maintained.

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

– Although this House would not know it, we are debating a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. There seems to be a sudden burst of effort within the Opposition ranks to find something to divert the attention of the Australian public from the involvement to which Opposition members seem to have committed themselves in other areas. I gather that the only reason this matter has been raised is that apparently it has been suggested that some articles will be published. The last question raised in the Parliament about this matter was raised on 26 May this year. I have not been absent from the House for one sitting day since 26 May. Not one question on it has been raised in the House since then. I have said, and I repeat it, that when the accountants whom I employed, and who were employed by the companies with which I associated, to investigate the affairs of this company- that was long before the other inquiry was instigated- have completed their investigations I will make a statement in this House. There will then be a complete story to tell and I will be very happy to defend my cause in this place.

The Opposition has demonstrated today, through the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), that it cares little for the Association of South East Asian Nations. It has repeated such behaviour tonight by demonstrating that beef producers in Australia and the access of beef into the United States does not matter to them. They accuse me of going on an overseas junket. The reason I am going is that this Government believes that the interests of Australia lie in persuading the American President to veto the legislation which will pass into law if he chooses to sign it.

I think it is interesting that the Labor Party seeks to move a motion which gives me an opportunity to make a statement about my affairs. A lot of things are important to the Australian community. There are matters which I believe need to be considered by the Parliament. I assure honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House that to the best of my knowledge and belief all the matters in which I am involved are in the hands of professionals who have been employed expressly for the purpose of resolving them. Quite apart from any involvement I might have, they have been employed to ensure that equity is done, that all taxes are paid, and in the parties to a purely private series of companies -

Mr Armitage:

– I take a point of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Goodness me, the Opposition cannot even take it. It says a great deal for its internal fortitude.

Mr Armitage:

– It has nothing to do with ‘GlenMarie’. My point of order is that I am not clear whether the Minister is opposing the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow him to make a statement -

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Armitage:

– You ruled that the honourable member for Port Adelaide can only deal -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Armitage:

-. . . with the issue of whether or not -

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable gentleman does not resume his seat I will name him.

Mr Armitage:

-. . . there should be a suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman sat down just in time.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The honourable gentleman and those Opposition members who supported the deplorable attack on the ASEAN countries today badly need an excuse. I can understand why. For months they have attempted to attack my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch). They have tried every device. They have tried to suggest that in some way he is culpable and that his behaviour has been reprehensible. I assure the House that neither in the attacks on him nor in the attacks on me are they attacking anybody who I believe has in any way breached the standards to which the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) referred a few minutes ago in quoting a speech from me.

Obviously this motion has been brought forward only to divert the attention of the Australian people from the faults in the Labor Party and its total inability to find policies such as those which this Government is pursuing and which the Labor Party would seek to alter. Members of the Labor Party have no policies to talk about. All they can talk about is personalities. They seek the suspension of Standing Orders not because this matter is urgent. They have had every day since 26 May to raise this matter. There has been not one question or public statement on it. They suddenly say: “This is a matter of urgency. Somebody is going to write an article about it’. One article was published today. I have had a chance to look at it. It is called ‘The Sinclair File ‘. I read it, not unnaturally, having some interest in the matter. As far as I can see, there is nothing in that article which has not already been canvassed and commented on in public. If there is I would be delighted if somebody would point it out to me.

I am not going away to act on behalf of Australia’s cattle producers in order to avoid answering questions on the matter. This matter has already been made public. If Opposition members or anybody else in this Parliament wished to ask me more questions on it they could well have done so, either from 26 May to date or from 12 August 1977 when it was first raised. In other words, the matter has been about and I have been available to the House. Any number of questions could have been raised.

Moreover, Mr Speaker, you will recall that in another deplorable incident the Leader of the Opposition sought to raise the matter by reading a letter into Hansard. Let me say that if the honourable gentleman felt that there was a matter that he should pursue he should know, although I must admit that the knowledge of honourable members opposite of the Standing Orders is fairly defective, that under the Standing Orders a motion of that nature could be canvassed in this House at any time by means of a substantive motion. In other words, Opposition members have not attempted in any way to raise a substantive motion. They have sought to move this motion now, on the eve of my departure for overseas for the purpose of helping Australian cattlemen, helping Australia not only in relation to its meat industry but also in relation to much wider trade negotiations, insofar as this American move seems to go completely contrary to its overall tack in the multi-lateral trade negotiations. I believe it is quite important that I take that trip.

Honourable members opposite have suggested that I am running away in haste. Let me assure this House that I am quite happy to stay here and listen to anything they have to offer. I thought that Opposition members might well have some new material. They tell me some news story is coming out tomorrow. I do not know of any new evidence. I do know an investigation is being conducted under the auspices of the New South Wales Attorney-General. My colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), has made some reference to this investigation in the past few weeks. Without doubt a report will be tendered in due course. I understand that the New South Wales Attorney-General said in a television interview that he does not expect to receive the report until next year. Indeed, I have been told exactly the same story, namely, that there will be no report until next year on those matters before him. That is a matter for his concern.

Let me assure this House that in no way do I believe that I have in any way breached the fiduciary responsibility that I have to the other parties who are members of these private companies. Indeed, no actions have been taken by me in association with those companies without all the parties being in total agreement. Indeed, at this stage we are all attempting to conclude an examination into the books of those companies extending right back to the date of incorporation, which in some instances was in the 1950s, in order to ensure that complete equity is established between all the parties. What the Labor Party seeks to do for its own political purposes is to try in some way to blow up the fact that I am going overseas on government business tomorrow.

This motion is another blatant instance of the total inadequacy of the Labor Party in finding policy issues which it can canvass in this Parliament. It is devoid of policy and devoid of initiatives. The only way in which members of the Labor Party can find any capability of expressing themselves in public is to belittle the individual members of this Government. We accept that that is the manner in which they behave. I for my part am quite prepared to answer questions that they might like to put to me. I am prepared to provide any sort of report which comes from my solicitors and my accountants, when it is prepared.

Mr Hurford:

– When are you going to do that?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The honourable gentleman would be an extraordinary man if he could go back into the 1950s and find all the records, all the cheques and all the statements in the records of these private companies, which I reiterate are none of the business of this Parliament or indeed of the people of Australia but are only the private business of the three parties concerned. Indeed, it is necessary from my point of view that I establish completely that justice is done to the other parties, that there is no evidence of any tax liability, and that all documents and papers and everything else are completed in the manner in which they should be completed. When that is finalised, I will make a statement in this House. In the meantime I state quite firmly that there is nothing with which I have been associated of which I am in any way ashamed or which in any way breaches the responsibility which I believe should belong to every member of this chamber. I sometimes wonder whether some honourable members on the opposite side of this House have their principles in quite the same high order as I believe every member of this Government has his principles.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The time allowed for this debate expires in just 30 seconds. If some honourable member wishes to speak for 30 seconds, I will call him. If not, we will proceed to put the question. The question before the Chair is that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders proposed by Mr Young be agreed to.

Question put.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 74

Majority……. 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1940

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1978-79

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Schedule 2.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $95,907,000.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was speaking to some points made in this debate by the honourable member for Reid concerning Mr Alex Bishaw, the Manager of the Northern Land Council. I was pointing out that the statement made by the honourable member for Reid that Mr Bishaw is a public servant from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is wrong and that he had resigned from the Department some time ago when he was chosen by the NLC from a field of applicants to take on the position of Manager of the Council. In other words, he abandoned the security of the Public Service in order to serve the Aboriginal people represented by the Northern Land Council. I can only condemn the honourable member for Reid when he attacks the integrity of a man such as Mr Bishaw, who has been prepared to serve the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. I can only condemn the honourable member for Reid for attacking what Mr Bishaw attempted to do in good faith at the Red Lillies meeting between the Northern Land Council and the traditional land owners.

As I said, Mr Bishaw was seeking to put a balanced presentation of the facts in relation to the ratification of the negotiated agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council. I am informed that Mr Bishaw was obliged to do that because of the prior conduct of the former solicitor for the Northern Land Council, Mr Stuart McGill, who had so abused his responsibility as solicitor to the NLC, as a servant of the Aboriginal people, that he used his position to try to persuade the NLC to act in a particular way against its will. It was left to Mr Bishaw to try to provide some balance to the advice being provided to the Aboriginal people by Mr McGill. It is because Mr Bishaw is not prepared to toe the line put by any particular political party or by any particular interest group that he is now the subject of intense criticism from the Australian Labor Party in Canberra and from the Australian Labor Party in Darwin.

Mr Bishaw is being subjected to abuse from those people who would want to see the Northern Land Council act as a vehicle to achieve their own political ends rather than for it to act as an instrument to pursue the interests of Aboriginals. Mr Bishaw opposes the use of the Land Council for these purposes and believes that the Aboriginal land councils of the Northern Territory should remain apart and divorced from the fortunes of any particular political party. That is the view I hold because if ever these land councils are to perform the duty that is cast upon them by the land rights legislation they must eschew political activity so that when the time comes in the ebb and flow of politics they will be in a position to serve the Aboriginal people, whatever political party is in power in Canberra or in Darwin.

I felt obliged to bring those matters forward in the debate because of the way in which the personal integrity of Mr Bishaw has been attacked by the honourable member for Reid. From the matters to which I have referred in this debate, the comments that were made by Mr Datta-Ray in the Canberra Times of 13 September 1978 which I already have read to the House, plus the information I brought to the attention of the House last Wednesday concerning Mr Muller of the staff of the honourable member for Reid and the letter written by the honourable member for Capricornia, we can see the attempts that have been made by the Labor Party to serve its own interests and not the interests of the Aboriginals. Finally on this point I quote again from the article written by Mr Datta-Ray when he wrote of Mr Frank Muller, the same Frank Muller who is on the staff of the honourable member for Reid. Mr Datta-Ray stated:

That is beside the point. What is definitely not is that they are pressing Aboriginal land rights only and exclusively in support of their own campaign against the mining companies and the Government’s uranium export policy.

Mr Datta Ray was writing there of Dr Joe Camilleri, Dr Geoffrey Moseley and Mr Frank Muller. What a trio! Their activities have been exposed to this chamber and to the people of Australia. As I have said, the Commonwealth at all times has pursued the spirit of the Woodward recommendations and has pursued the responsibilities of the Commonwealth under the land rights legislation in the negotiations that have been carried out concerning the Ranger agreement. I am quite sure that in that spirit and in the pursuit of the land rights legislation in the end a result will be reached. It will be a result which is satisfactory to the Aboriginal people, satisfactory to the Government and satisfactory to the people of Australia. In the end it will be shown to have brought together the vital interests- all of which are national interests in their own right- of those people who are concerned about the environment and the interests of the Aboriginal people and those people who are concerned to see desirable national development through the mining of uranium.

Having said that about the matters introduced by the Opposition in the debate on these estimates, I turn to some of the particular aspects of the appropriations of my Department for this financial year. Some attempt- I must say a paltry attempt- has been made by the Opposition to attack those appropriations. I would make the point immediately that direct spending on Aboriginal programs this financial year will represent an increase of 9. 1 per cent over that for 1 977-78, which is greater than the increase of some 7.7 per cent in Government expenditure overall. Therefore, even in a time of such economic restraint, the Government has recognised the urgent need to fund Aboriginal programs adequately. By any standards, our Aboriginals are a greatly disadvantaged people and the Government has provided for an increase of 9. 1 per cent in the appropriations of my Department, as against 7.7 in the Budget overall.

I shall now give quickly some of the figures which relate to key areas of my Department’s programs. For Aboriginal health the total expenditure in 1977-78 by way of State grants and grants-in-aid was $16,289,000. For this financial year, the appropriation is to be $17,487,000, representing an increase of $1.1 98m or 7.4 per cent. Upon education, State grants and grantsinaid last year totalled $8,248,000. For this financial year the appropriation is $9,270,000, an increase of $1,022,000, or 12.4 per cent. Upon employment, the expenditure last year by way of grants-in-aid and State grants totalled $6,386,000. For this year $6.9m is to be appropriated, representing an increase of $514,000 or 8 per cent. Upon welfare programs last year expenditure by way of grants-in-aid and State grants totalled $2,994,000. For this year the appropriation is $3,435,000, an increase of $44 1 ,000, or 1 4.7 per cent.

Upon training programs the total expenditure last year by way of State grants and grants-in,aid was $1,621,000. The appropriation fortius year is $2,503,000, an increase of $882,000, or 54.4 per cent. I emphasise the expenditure on training programs. For the first time training has been identified as a separate line item, in the appropriations of the Department. This has been done to emphasise the Government’s policy of selfmanagement, through training in management and other skills. We have brought together under one heading some of the appropriations that were previously made under other headings and have added certain new programs. We are committed to our policy of self-management because we believe that through it the Aboriginal people will be given, in an economic and social sense, equality of opportunity of a kind that they have never previously enjoyed. But we recognise that if the policy of self-management is to succeed, Aboriginals must be equipped with the skills and resources to manage their own affairs. It is not enough to thrust this responsibility upon them, and to fail to recognise that they need certain skills and resources if they are to carry out that responsibility.

I look forward to seeing in future Budgets increasing amounts allocated under this heading of training throughout Australia. We recognise that only by a greater Government effort, by marshalling all of the resources of the Comonwealth and State governments, and by injecting further funds for training, can we achieve fully our objective of bringing self-management to the Aboriginal people. It is the one program that I wish to emphasise heavily ; but if any honourable member takes the care to go through all of the programs of the Department he will note significant increases throughout; as I have indicated that the Government’s priorities are squarely set so as to alleviate poverty and through selfmanagement provide greater opportunity in economic and social matters.

This year a total of $40m is being allocated for the provision of some 887 houses, as against 557 in the last financial year. As well, 105 additional beds are to be provided through Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. A sum of $5.35m will be provided to the Aboriginal Loans Commission. This will enable the making of 195 home loans. The additional allocation for housing, which in itself reflects the priority that this Government gives to that aspect, amounts to $5. 24m more than the provision made for 1977-78.

The Government recognises the heavy unemployment that exists in Aboriginal communities and amongst Aboriginal people throughout Australia, whether in an urban or rural situation, or in remote areas. The Government’s programs are designed to overcome that problem as much as is possible- whilst recognising that we still have a long, long way to go. We do not underestimate the task that lies ahead, but approximately $7m is provided for employment. Of that sum almost one half, or $3.2m, will provide employment for an additional 650 Aboriginals through special works projects.

The community development employment projects scheme, which is designed especially for remote communities, operates as pilot projects in 10 centres in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. It is part of the Government’s national employment strategy. The total number of persons employed under the CDEP scheme is estimated to be 776. The remarks of the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs reveal an abysmal understanding, if one might so put it, of the way in which that scheme is organised, and of what it is intended to achieve. This scheme is intended to respond to what Aboriginals want. One of the things that has struck me immensely in visiting the Aboriginal communities has been the constant theme about unemployment benefits and employment. Aboriginals say to me constantly: ‘We do not want to receive sit-down money. We want to work’.

The CDEP scheme is designed to provide work for those Aboriginals who are prepared to work. If in these remote communities work is offered to them and they decline it, naturally they disentitle themselves, under the ordinary work test, to unemployment benefit. The CDEP scheme is designed to reflect what Aboriginals want. They want to work if money is provided and work is available, rather than to receive the socially destructive unemployment benefit. It might be worth while for honourable members to recognise that in Australia there are many Aboriginal communities which flatly refuse to take unemployment benefits. In how many places in Australia can that be said of the white community. Many Aboriginal communities, of their own volition, deny themselves unemployment benefit. They have seen what sit-down money, as they call it, does to their people.

These are only some of the things that the programs of the Department, under this year’s Budget, will achieve. I could go on to illustrate just what health, education and other programs will mean to people and to communities; how we are supporting in all walks of life Aboriginals who want to help themselves, who no longer want simply to receive a Government handoutbut projects designed to support the work that they want to do within their own communities and for themselves. I can only commend Aboriginal communities throughout Australia for the way in which they are responding to our programs. As each year goes by and we tailor our programs to their needs as expressed to us through their representatives, such as the National Aboriginal Conference members, and through the programming conferences that my Department organises throughout Australia, I can see a much brighter future ahead for Aboriginal people than they have seen before.

As all these programs of the Department develop, measured merely in money or through the activities of the National Aboriginal Conference, the Council for Aboriginal Development or the Government’s land rights policies and other policies that honourable members will see in time to come, this Government will be able to look back upon its period of administration of Aboriginal affairs and say that it has given Aborigines a new look at the future- something for which they have been waiting for years and years but which has never been provided. I look forward to my continuing opportunity as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to discharge my responsibilities to the Aboriginal people of Australia.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

-I do. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) said during his reply that I had falsely accused Mr Alex Bishaw of certain actions. Mr Alex Bishaw is a self-confessed liar. I stress that. He is an officer working in a statutory office under the authority of the Minister. He lied to the Northern Land Council. I quote from an article in the Northern Territory News of 28 September 1978. It states:

Northern Land Council Manager, Mr Alex Bishaw, today issued a statement fully retracting a comment he attributed to ACTU President, Mr Bob Hawke, at a meeting of the NLC two weeks ago.

Mr Bishaw said: ‘It is true that I recently repeated a statement that I had been led to believe had been said by Mr Hawke while he was in Darwin recently.

This was to the effect that Mr Hawke had said that if the Northern Land Council did not sign the Ranger agreement the Government would “ Pin its ears back “ ‘.

He was saying this to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Land Council to frighten them because of the Government’s action. The article continues:

This was said by me to support my advice to the council that if the council rejected the negotiated Ranger agreement they would not necessarily be supported by all unions.

I said this in that context and because I had been led to believe those words were said by Mr Hawke.

Mr Bishaw retracted that statement after Mr Hawke threatened to take libel action. I am saying clearly that Mr Bishaw is unfit to be an officer of the Northern Land Council. He lied to the Aboriginals of the Northern Land Council. That is one lie that I have already pinned down. He admits that he lied to the Northern Land Council. There is other evidence on tape that the Minister, if he were a Minister worthy of his responsibility, would investigate and then take action against this man. The Minister should not say that I have falsely charged him. The Minister also attacked a member of my personal staff. I have already dealt with that in another personal explanation. Clearly the Minister is wild because the Aboriginal people are standing up for their rights and at this stage will not allow his Government to mine uranium on their land.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable gentleman was hardly explaining where he had been misrepresented.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– Yes, again I have been misrepresented grievously by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) on the issue on which I was misrepresented last Thursday. He again quoted from my letter to Mr Yunupingu. He again said that the meaning of my letter was what he read out from an article by a man called Datta-Ray in the Canberra Times. It is nothing of the kind. As I also explained last Thursday, my statement about people within the Labor movement who are putting other issues ahead of Aboriginal interests does not refer to any person in this Parliament or the Northern Territory Parliament or to any of their staffs. The Minister says -

Mr Viner:

– To which Labor members were you referring?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– You mentioned the name of Mr Muller, did you not?

Mr Viner:

– Yes, of course I did.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

- Mr Muller is a member of the staff of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). Mr Datta-Ray said that he was speaking to young people in Canberra -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member must explain where he has been misrepresented, otherwise he is out of order.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I have been misrepresented because the Minister has been attributing to me the statement of Mr Datta-Ray who said that Mr Muller, a member of the staff of the honourable member for Reid, organised young people in Canberra who in his opinion would turn against Aborigines if Aborigines favoured mining. I have never made such an allegation. The Minister is quite incorrect in attributing that sentiment to me.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of National Development

Proposed expenditure, $49,967,000.

Department of Trade and Resources

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 1 8,890,000.

Department of the Special Trade Representative

Proposed expenditure, $462,000.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I would like to deal specifically with two issues involving the Department of National Development. The first is the question of the recent public debate relating to export controls. The second is the question of the Government’s increase in the price of crude oil through the mechanism of the excise on indigenous crude oil product in Australia. I shall deal firstly with the question of export controls. The Government’s prerogative in the area has been a matter of controversy between the Opposition and the Government. A consensus is being reached between the Opposition and the Government that indeed there is a place for government intervention in what would otherwise be the free market place operations of the resource industry. Of recent times Australia has been clearly disadvantaged in those operations. The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr

Anthony) has indicated his unhappiness with those arrangements. We concur with his view but we say now, as we have said often in the past, that there should have been more direct involvement by the Government earlier rather than later.

This all points up the fact that within the Department of National Development there seems to be an inadequacy in export control surveillance and the surveillance of commodities exported from Australia. The Department must lack information- I am not saying this on advice from the Department but just upon the statements of the Minister- in relation to marketing, particularly of iron ore and coal. I think that, for instance, production information from other mine sites around the world would need to be current for Australia to have any kind of information base in negotiations for resource pricing. We need information about what the Japanese steel mills and the steel mills of other customer countries are doing, what they are doing with their current iron ore and coal requirements, what blends they are currently engaged in using, and what impact that will have on exports from Australia and on shipping schedules for various types of product.

Of recent times there has been discussion about the Brazilians fixing the market price for iron ore. I am quite certain that neither the Department nor the Minister knows the full impact of the Japanese negotiations with Brazil. We are not certain about whether any sweetheart deals have been arranged or about whether the price is really a fair market price. Those iron ore prices fix the ceiling for Australian prices which subsequently are adjusted with a freight differential. The other area where there seems to be a lack of information is shipping freights- spot freight rates and long term freight rates and how they affect prices on a differential basis between various countries, particularly those selling to Japan.

The Estimates make no reference to any export control section. It was the Government’s intention to run down the export control section from the days when it was developed under the Labor Government. The Minister made a statement about a year ago in similar terms and said that instead of each export delivery from Australia under contract arrangements being vetted, companies would be required only to submit annual returns on these negotiations. It seems to me that that is a very inadequate base. Australia ought to be looking for real intelligence on which to base and to supervise export commodities, particularly in the face of difficult marketing circumstances such as the existing buyer’s market, especially for commodities affecting steel production. Therefore, I think that the Government could well look to an improvement in this kind of surveillance and this information base within its own bureaucracy. In the next Budget we hope to see the export control question being treated in such a way that funds are made available to employ an adequate number of staff to gather available information on which to advise the Government on the current state of any resource negotiation or any resource supply or demand pricing picture at any one time. I do not think that that information is currently available. It ought to be. It is quite foolish for a major trading nation like Australia not to have an information base which rivals that of the steel mills and the iron ore and coal companies which operate in this country. The system ought to be much better.

The second matter I want to deal with is the increase in the price of Australian crude oil to refiners and the impact of that upon the price of petrol in Australia. Honourable members will recall that as a result of the 1977-78 Budget there was an additional cost of 2.5c per litre or 1 1.4c per gallon on petrol for the Australian consuming public. In the 1978-79 Budget the price of motor spirit has been increased by about 3.5c per litre or 16c a gallon over the price as at 30 June 1978, or 3c per litre or 13.6c a gallon over the expected 1978-79 price as a result of last year’s Budget. The result of these decisions is a windfall pre-tax profit to oil producers in Australia as follows: The Gippsland Basin producers for 1977-78, $160m, and for 1978-79, $298m; the Barrow Island oil producers, $41m for 1977-78 and $41m this year; the Moonie oil producers, $2.5m for both years. The 1977-78 Budget also provided for further increases in the percentage of Gippsland crude oil which would attract import parity less the $3 a barrel levy for the producers in the 1979-80 and 1980-81 budgetary years. As a result the Esso-BHP consortium will gain additional revenue of about $100m in 1979- 80 and a further $100m in 1980-81. The present Budget foreshadowed that these additional gains to producers will still follow. However, because the consumer is already paying full import parity by way of a return to the producer plus a levy to the Government in 1979-80 and 1980- 81, these additional increases in windfall revenues will be at the expense of Government revenue. In other words, Government revenue from the crude oil production levy will fall in 1979-80 by $100m and in 1980-81 by $200m from the 1978-79 amount which was estimated in the Budget at $804m.

Broadly, the Opposition supports the movement towards opportunity cost energy pricing as part of an overall energy policy. The weakness in the Government’s policy under this budgetary arrangement is that the measure was put on basically as a revenue-raising measure and not as part of a total energy package. If it were part of a total energy policy as the Government argues, why was something not done about natural gas pricing? There was nothing about natural gas pricing. The Government refers only to the question of crude oil pricing. The Opposition feels that the previous approach of a gradual movement to import parity over time was the right approach rather than having something which steps the price up and has an inflationary impact by moving it to import parity for the whole of Australian production of crude oil in one year.

The approach to gradualism had our support. What did not have our support was the fact that the windfall returns were going to producers instead of being shared equitably with the public, the community or the Government, as the case may be. Rather than having an energy policy of 100 per cent import parity for crude oU we have a revenue raising measure to try to hold the Government’s Budget deficit down. Of course, even those revenues will be transferred to the producers as the 1977-78 budgetary impact starts to take effect. Gradually, as the producers climb towards import parity, the levy will just be whittled away and end up in their coffers instead of some of the funds accruing to the public purse. Some does accrue to the public purse by way of company tax, but we believe that this is not good enough.

There is no evidence to suggest that the increase in price drops consumption immediately, but over time one believes that it ought to. We feel that this is an inadequate basis for such a massive increase in crude oil price. It is a hell of a slug to Australian motorists, to the people on the land and to other consumers of energy. It is not part of an energy package; it is just a revenue raising measure. The Government ought to start to produce a comprehensive energy policy for Australia. If it wants to look at opportunity cost pricing it should do so not only for crude oil but also for natural gas and other energy commodities in Australia.

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

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

– I want to spend a moment or two tonight in this section of the Estimates debate to talk about some of the measures that the Government has introduced to assist Australian industries which are interested in developing our export potential. I am particularly pleased that the Government has broken new ground in this Budget in a national effort to promote export within our manufacturing industry. At a time when so many of our industries are operating below capacity and when an unacceptably high proportion of our work force is unemployed, the export incentives in the Federal Budget are timely and welcome. Australian industry has fallen behind in the export race. Now is the time to catch up, and the Government recognised what must be done by this Budget. It is unarguable that the well being, the prosperity and the standard of living of all Australians is dependent on our performance as a competitive export nation.

It is important to recognise the difficulties Australian manufacturers face when it comes to winning export orders. It is important also to recognise the efforts that Australian industry is making to secure reliable export markets. In this regard I mention the efforts by certain manufacturers in the electorate of La Trobe. I can cite the case of an individual who heads a local industry and who makes in excess of 20 overseas trips each year, particularly to the Asian and South East Asian regions, in an effort to hold export contracts that he has won on behalf of his firm and to secure others. It is this sort of dedication which we should recognise and which the Government should support all the time. It is clear that the inflation rate particularly of the years between 1973 and 1976 has reduced our competitive edge in the export field. Equally, the slow-down in world trade has made our task in this area far more difficult. Australian industries that are serious about exports have faced immense difficulties. We should be grateful that the initiative to compete and win export orders still exists within our manufacturing industries. I invite the Parliament to put all possible effort and all possible assistance behind those elements of our industrial output where export success can be achieved. If we ignore this expertise and initiative we will do so at our national peril. The Budget recognises this position by taking the necessary steps to supplement the performance of our manufacturers in the area of export.

For any of this national export effort to be effective certain factors must be resolved. The escalation in our cost structure must first be reduced. Recent figures show quite clearly that the fight against inflation has been dramatically successful. Who would have thought that Australia’s inflation rate, which just four years ago was nearly 17 per cent annually, will be down to 4 per cent or 5 per cent within a few months? Only when Australia’s inflation rate is substantially below that of our competitors can we start to win the battle in securing export orders. The position now is relatively clear. Inflation is no longer our national bogeyman and, given a sensible approach to wages demands and other elements of our production costs, the future of this country is unlimited. What should not be overlooked is that it is our capacity as exporters that will determine our capacity to import. It is Australia’s productive capacity that will in the longer run determine our influence in matters of world trade, world development and the interests of all people.

The elements of the Australian industrial scene- management, labour and governmentmust realise and acknowledge that it is our performance as exporters that will determine the future of our work force. Every Australian parent or worker has a vested interest in achieving success in export. The Government has shown the way. I trust that all Australians will co-operate in a national endeavour to be successful. If nothing else will draw Australia together in a national cooperative effort, if nothing else will cause us to lay down the mantle of political division, surely export endeavour will provide such a medium. The obvious fact is that in recent years many Australian manufacturers have transformed their businesses, either in whole or in part, from that of manufacturer to that of importer. Nothing could be more devastating to Australia’s interest in general and the interest of those people in the work force in particular. The displaced work force cannot find alternative employment.

Instead of playing a role in using Australian resources in manufacture, they become part of the pool of unemployed, depending on the support of social welfare payments. Despite the abnormally high level of unemployment, some elements of industry are experiencing a shortage of labour. Not always is the requirement for skilled labour. Only this week I learned that General Motors-Holden’s Ltd has vacancies for 300 unskilled workers on its assembly lines at Dandenong and Pagewood. Vacancies for skilled workers, particularly in the metal trades, are numerous. It concerns me greatly that, as economic activity picks up, the shortage of skilled workers will be still more serious. These are conflicts which I bring to the attention of the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) because policies of the Government must be refined to deal with such conflicting issues. If training is not stepped up in the skilled areas of the metal trades, industrial recovery will be compromised as the industry sectors compete for this limited human resource. There is a responsibility for both industry and government in this regard.

In recent months there has been widespread discussion on the effect that mechanisation and technical development are having on job opportunities. Some people have doubted the wisdom of the 40 per cent investment allowance which provided an incentive for industry to re-equip for more efficient production. The argument, I gather, is that such investment replaces people with machines. In some respects this argument clearly is correct, but it overlooks the fact that in many cases the task performed by the machine is of a repetitive or at least an uninspiring nature. As such it is hardly an attractive form of employment for a person. People who hold this reservation might do well to look at some figures that were prepared by the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association in 1976. These figures, which I will seek to incorporate in a moment, indicate that countries with the highest employment levels generally were those with the highest percentage of machine tools that were less than 10 years old. For instance, Japan is the most outstanding case. It was found to have 41 per cent of machine tools that were less than five years old. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr BAILLIEU:

– Equally significant are figures from the same source which illustrate the expenditure that various countries have made on capital plant and equipment as a percentage of their gross domestic product. We would do well to compare these statistics with the corresponding numbers of the available work force who are without jobs in these same countries. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table covering that situation.

Leave granted.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– In fact the 40 per cent investment allowance, whilst it was a significant and welcome initiative. is not all that generous to manufacturers. In the United Kingdom, for instance, manufacturers are able to depreciate most items of capital equipment at rates of up to 100 per cent in the first year. That is the policy of a socialist government. In his 1977 policy speech the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that this Government would introduce a twopronged system of export incentives to encourage manufacturers to promote and sell their goods overseas. It is my pleasant task now to compliment the Government on the implementation of this election promise. I believe that the measures that have been taken up by the Government will go a very long way towards accepting the challenge that is required of this country in the export field.

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– In talking to the estimates with regard to trade one has to consider the fact that a number of Ministers have responsibilities in the area, not the least of whom would be the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) and the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland). It follows therefore that there is really no coordination within the Government to have a clear-cut policy concerning trade. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) has said that some help will be given to exporters by way of grants and incentives. We will be dealing with that legislation later this week. One of the matters to which I think one could advert at this stage is whether that legislation has been accurately drafted to give the incentive to the producer rather than to the exporter. We should consider how we can co-ordinate the activities of this country with the needs of other countries.

From the Opposition’s point of view our prosperity depends on trade and trade policy requires forward planning. We require an active pursuit of new markets and a much more effective approach to existing markets. For example, in the present budget of the Department of Special Trade Representations, which is $462,000, one half of that amount will be spent on travel. We say that the appropriate title for the distinguished Minister could be that of travel agent of the Government. That is where his effectiveness lies. He moves across the world and talks about the difficulties that Australia is facing. He calls the Europeans schizophrenics. Having difficultues in negotiating effective trade arrangements with the European Economic Community in no way justifies abusive terms because it does not do us any good. This Government has been unable to accept the position that what existed prior to World War II and subsequently- the British Empire or the British Commonwealth of Nations- has gone.

The European Economic Community whilst it does not represent the whole of Europe is looking after that segment which belongs to the Community. It is looking after the votes of people in the rural areas and it will subsidise their rural produce. It is doing it in a devastating fashion in relation to sugar and dairy products. That is one of the issues. Whilst we are now saying that we are prepared to criticise the EEC this is not the least bit of annoyance to the EEC. The EEC is interested only in one of our products, uranium, provided it can get it at a reasonable price. In terms of economic stability and strength, we are in a very difficult position indeed. The export and import statistics for September 1978 clearly show that our position is worsening. For the quarter ended September, on a seasonally adjusted basis, the deficit was $4m, and for September itself the deficit was $72m. For the corresponding period last year there was no minus factor but in fact there was a credit. So, the position is worsening. We are in a difficult position because of many factors. The balance of payments for September 1978 shows that we are in more trouble. The balance on current account in September last year was bad enough at minus $77 1 m, but in September this year the deficit was $992m. Because of the unsatisfactory balance of trade in invisibles and other items, we are getting deeper and deeper into debt despite the capital inflow and heavy borrowing overseas. We are not really making any progress in establishing effective trading operations.

An Australian Minister attended meetings of the Association of South East Asian Nations, and that is to be commended. These nations are not at all impressed with our recent activities, particularly the announcement in the Budget of the imposition of a 12.5 per cent customs duty on goods the subject of tariff quotas. As honourable members would be aware, last week gentlemen from those countries, particularly from Malaysia, complained bitterly about the fact that we were imposing taxes in order to prevent goods from coming into this country. It is true, of course, that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said that this is only a budgetary measure but our ASEAN friends, the people with whom we live in this region, are very concerned that on the one hand this Parliament is threatening to take the European Economic Community to task for a breach of article 16 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in dumping sugar in New Guinea but that on the other hand it is imposing customs duty on goods the subject of tariff quotas which could be deemed to be a protective device. ASEAN members are seriously considering whether they should do the same thing to us. They feel that perhaps we are breaching the terms of GATT. I think we have to look at this from the point of view of what we are all about. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made the point that we must have good relations with ASEAN and I agree. These good relations will be destroyed if we achieve this sort of undesirable result because of the peculiarities of a Treasury action.

It is of no help to us to be suggesting that we will have a system for early warning of disaster. That is what the present arrangements are. I understand that we will have an early warning system for notification of tariff changes to ASEAN countries and this will be established in order that there is no misunderstanding in future as to the adverse decisions we might make. This approach ignores other people with whom we trade. Why do we not have an early warning system for Hong Kong, Korea and Japan to improve their accuracy in criticism? The fact is that our relations with South East Asia remain the victim of inter-departmental rivalries- a scarcely measured loss at the end of a chain of bitter consequences in our failure to plan the national economy. We can have no strategy for ASEAN unless we have a strategy for Australian industry. That should be made clear.

We have been told that the Multilateral Trade Negotiations will be a matter about which we will be advised eventually. Manufacturers and others in this country are concerned about what sorts of offers we have been making at the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. They want to know what sorts of tariff reductions we are prepared to accept. We cannot find that out. From that point of view, it does appear that what we are offering by way of reductions in tariff is an effort to get some particular access to the beef market in the EEC which is extremely vulnerable indeed. But what about our manufacturing base? If it is to be weakened by the fact that for some extraordinary reason, about which we do not know the facts, the Government apparently seems to be prepared to lower tariffs, it is not fair and it is not reasonable. It is against the Australian interests that the Parliament is not told what the Government is prepared to offer. That is the point we are making.

We want to talk about the fact that sufficient funds have not been allocated to assist in the promotion of trade, and this is a matter of some significance. We must give high praise to the Western Australian Lamb Marketing Board. It has established a market of over $5m by expertise and what we could call certain skills in trade which have not been developed elsewhere. If we say this sort of thing to the present Government it starts talking about the socialisation of the Opposition because the Opposition is endeavouring to have established an overseas trading corporation. The Government would not say that the Lamb Marketing Board in Western Australia is a socialistic enterprise but it has the capacity to acquire all lambs. Does the Government suggest that the Australian Wheat Board should be done away with because it is a socialist venture and because, under a High Court decision, it now owns all the wheat that is produced? Is it not really related to the fact that if Australia is to trade in the world it has to have some orderly marketing arrangements? We ought to be doing, a lot more business with the Middle East where there is a new market for us if we trade effectively and if we send more trade commissioners into that area or allocate more people trade positions.

Mr Chapman:

– The meat workers will not let us.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The meat workers will let us engage in intelligent trade. What the meat workers do not want the Government to do is to send old cracker ewes to the Middle East as good quality mutton. That does not help our trade. The most recent contract we lost was lost to Bulgaria, because of the inferior quality of our product. Coming to the other point of what we are about, we have no difficulty in effecting -

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

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-On several occasions in this Parliament I have emphasised the significance of trade to Australia and to the economic well-being of all Australians. It is appropriate to do so again in debating the estimates for the Department of Trade and Resources, the Department of the Special Trade Representative and the Department of National Development because these particular departments are, of course, most associated with trade. Australia is very much a trading nation. In particular, income from exports is a major contributor to the nation’s real wealth. The future prosperity of all Australians is dependent on maintaining and improving the economic viability of export earners. Our enhanced prosperity is dependent on tapping new markets for export producers. It is dependent also upon ensuring that productive resources are directed towards areas where economic growth can be based on the development of export markets. As I have said on earlier occasions, in Australia the era of economic growth based on high levels of migration and the development of manufacturing industry through import replacement is over. Future growth in all sectors of the economyprimary, secondary and tertiary- will be dependent on the expansion of export markets and, hence, on restoring our cost competitiveness against overseas producers.

The 1978 Fraser Government Budget will make a major contribution towards restoring the competitive edge of Australian producers and, hence, our capacity to trade. The Budget addresses the realities of our economic circumstances and seeks solutions to our economic problems in a responsible manner. It recognises that there are not any quick or easy solutions to Australia’s economic problems. The Budget builds on the firm foundations of the economic strategy pursued by the Government over the last two years.

The shocks to our economy caused by the previous Labor Government were extremely severe. Those shocks removed us from the economic stability of the 1950s and the 1960s. They were significantly detrimental to our capacity to trade profitably on international markets. Wages outstripped prices and, to an even greater extent, productivity during the Labor era. For example, real male wages spiralled by 17 per cent and real female wages spiralled by 24 per cent during 1974. Costs of production rocketed with consequent price increases. This destroyed our growing export market for many goods.

One of the most serious effects was felt in the motor vehicle industry. That industry- Chrysler

Australia in particular, in which I have an interest being the honourable member for Kingston- was developing a significant export market for motor vehicles during the period leading up to the era of the Labor Government. The cost increases in particular during the Labor period destroyed the capacity of the industry to develop that growing export market. Indeed, many of it markets were lost. This era also made it impossible for these goods to compete against imports on Australia’s domestic market because their prices were no longer competitive. Hence the demand, both domestic and international, for Australian-produced goods declined. Production fell accordingly and thousands of jobs were destroyed under the combined effect of that and excessively high wages. Unemployment increased by 1 57 per cent in 1 974.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Shame !

Mr CHAPMAN:

– It was a shame for those who lost their jobs during that period and those who have since lost their jobs as the result of the carry-over of the effects of that period. In three successive Budgets the Fraser Government has acted to reverse these disastrous distortions in the economy. Fiscal and monetary stability have been restored and inflation has been brought under control by stringent controls on government spending and the encouragement of wage restraint. By dampening inflationary expectations and restoring profitability faith in Australia’s future is being restored. The rate of inflation as measured by the consumer price index has fallen from 13.4 per cent in the 12 months to June 1977 to 7.9 per cent in the 12 months to June 1978. Restraint of government expenditure has brought the deficit under control. This success with both inflation and the deficit has allowed a gradual reduction to occur in interest rates. All of these factors combined are providing the incentive for the establishment of new productive enterprises in spheres where Australia can develop and maintain a comparative economic advantage and hence the capacity to penetrate overseas markets. The 1978 Budget will continue to strengthen that trend.

The Government, through a detailed analysis of expenditure, has been able to prevent any significant increase in government spending in this Budget. The 7.7 per cent money increase is virtually no increase when one accounts for the effects of inflation. However, to minimise the deficit the Government has been required to raise additional revenue. Hence in 1978-79 only we have to bear a 1.5 per cent increase in income tax. There has also been an increase in certain excise duties. But by restraining the deficit in this way we will lower the rate of inflation, which is reliably predicted to be 5 per cent and falling by the end of the current financial year, and also lower interest rates. This will place Australia in a better position than its major trading partners and so provide further scope for the expansion of trading activity. Achieving a rate of inflation below that of our major trading partners is an important pre-condition to enlarging Australia’s success as a trading nation. There are other consequences of the Budget which will also enhance Australia’s trading prospects. Gross nonfarm product is projected to grow by about 4 per cent during the current financial year with farm product doing even better than that.

The validity of the Budget should be measured not only against its potential to achieve its goals but also against the capacity of the alternatives which are offered. One extremely disappointing aspect of the recent economic debate is the Labor Opposition’s persistent failure to grasp the reality of Australia’s economic situation.

Mr Porter:

– Hear, hear!

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I welcome the agreement of the honourable member for Barker with that statement. This is particularly emphasised by the so-called alternative Budget of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). Apart from the inaccurate figuring which makes its overall impact far more uncertain than the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe, his alternative Budget would produce a deficit in excess of $4,500m.

Mr Baillieu:

– Good heavens!

Mr CHAPMAN:

-As the honourable member for La Trobe says, there would there be a massive deficit of $4,500m unless the Leader of the Opposition’s taxation proposals were made retrospective to the date of the last Federal election. We certainly were not told of any of those proposals at that time.. So there is a certain sleight of hand in the figures that have been presented by the Leader of the Opposition in his alternative Budget. Without allowing for the retrospective introduction of those measures they would result in a deficit of $4,500m. Labor’s alternative would fuel inflation, reduce business and consumer confidence, restore high interest rates and cause a net capital outflow from Australia. The alternative Budget introduced by the Labor leader would therefore involve a balance of payments crisis, a severe cut in corporate investment and profitability, a 180-degree turn in monetary policy and a significantly faster wage growth. In short, in general this would stifle growth prospects, set back recovery and therefore seriously harm all Australians. In particular, the alternative provided by Labor would destroy the nation’s capacity to trade profitably by preventing our cost structure from becoming competitive against the cost structures of our trading partners.

The alternative which has been offered by the Labor Party during this Budget debate, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition, would prove disastrous, especially in the area of providing the opportunity for Australia to expand its trading prospects. In contrast, the Fraser Government’s Budget for 1978-79 continues the task of putting right Australia ‘s economic fundamentals. The Australian people clearly recognise that. That is why, despite the rabble-rousing attempts of the Labor Party to whip up mass opposition to the Budget, the common sense of the Australian people has prevailed. They have accepted the Budget. Notwithstanding the attempt in South Australia of the South Australian Premier to whip up opposition, no South Australian government member has received any significant opposition to the Budget. The Australian people have accepted the Budget as a necessary step on the road to economic recovery and prosperity. The expansion of our trading opportunities will play a major role in the journey down that road.

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

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) (9.38)-The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) seems to blame everything on increased wages. I do not know who received these increased wages. They may have been received also by members of parliament or Pitt Street farmers, but the workers whom I represent received only what they were entitled to receive. They deserved and needed every bit of it. Trade and resources are inter-related matters that affect the living standards of every Australian. Coming from a mining town, I want to say something in support of the development of our mineral resources. It must be remembered that our mineral resources, as well as being inter-related with other national resources, are inter-related with international resources. Because of this some of our mineral deposits cannot be mined as, in some cases, Australia does not have the technological know-how to treat the ore and in other cases it does not have a guaranteed continuing overseas market for the ore once it is treated and mined.

For that reason, I was pleased to read the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) to the Western Austraiian Mining Club on 30 March 1978 when he made the statement that the mining industry has made a significant contribution during the last decade or so to the welfare of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition could have gone back much further than that. He could have gone back to 1883 to the start of the Broken Hill mines. The Broken Hill mines have made a very significant contribution to the welfare of Australia since that time. I wholly endorse the Leader of the Opposition’s final remarks. He said:

Finally, I repeat, the development of the mining industry has greatly benefited the Australian community. Despite the many pressures today I feel sure that the industry will make an important contribution in the future.

I also believe that it will. But I think that we should take particular notice of the Leader of the Opposition’s next sentence. He said:

But to do that we must make sure conditions are right to encourage development.

I think that that is the important thing in the development of our mineral resources. I support these remarks because I believe that nothing holds greater promise for the nation ‘s future welfare than the development of our mineral resources. I am not dealing with uranium resources; I am talking about the development of other resources. Although I do not say that the development of uranium will not help, I am concentrating particularly on other mineral resources.! think that we have a responsibility to see that the average Australian is properly informed of all the facts and circumstances connected with the development, mining and export of our mineral resources. A false impression has been gained by the average Australian through Press reports of huge profits made by mining companies such as the Utah Development Company and the huge amount of finance that it repatriates out of Australia. We all know that that is true but unfortunately we hear very little of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been paid in State and Federal taxes by mining companies such as the Broken Hill companies.

In the 1 2 years to 30 June 1 974 the Broken Hill mining companies paid $260, 539m in income tax, State royalties, local government rates and workers’ payroll tax. That is a yearly average of $21,71 lm. No one could say that that was not a fair effort for the number of employees in Broken Hill. Bad publicity is also given to the fact that in the early part of a mine’s development a mining company has a deferred tax allowance. It seems to me that it is never pointed out that without this provision Australian mining companies would not be able to obtain the finance to develop their mines. It must be remembered that it takes five or six years to develop a mine. In order to attract finance mining companies must have some kind of a deferred tax allowance.

What is not generally remembered is that deferred tax is not tax avoided. The companies eventually pay it. I believe that we should continue to provide for tax deferment in our new mining ventures. Without it mining companies could not meet the repayment requirements of the major lenders. I think it is important that these lenders invest in our mineral resources; but at the same time I believe that the Australian Government should be giving Australians more encouragement and more assistance to invest in their own mineral resources. That is not always done. I remember one occasion on which a Broken Hill mining company made shares available to its employees at a price below their market value to encourage them to invest in their mine. Two years later the Taxation Office caught up with them. Because they had paid less than the market value of the shares they had to pay tax on them.

Mr Baillieu:

– Only if they were sold.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– No, the honourable member is wrong. At that stage the price of the shares was below the amount that the employees paid. The companies had the same argument as school teachers had recently. At that time the Taxation Office enforced its decision. Plenty of Broken Hill miners were caught up. Such action discourages Australians from investing in their own mines. It is wrong. We should be giving them encouragement to take out shares. In spite of this a good deal of Australian finance is invested in the development of our mineral resources. Honourable members may remember what happened recently when the south mine in Broken Hill closed down. The workers put in money to get it going again. That was a success story.

We often hear that 62 per cent of our mineral resources is foreign owned. I am informed that the correct figure is near 40 per cent. Whether the amount is somewhere between these two figures it compares more than favourably with the motor industry which is 88 per cent foreign owned and the pharmaceutical industry which is 75 per cent foreign owned. We might well ask why some Australians go out of their way to knock our mining industries and at the same time are prepared to pay many hundreds of dollars to support the automobile industry which is also foreign owned. This does not make sense to me. It must be remembered that 3 per cent of the work force is responsible for producing one-third of Australia’s export earnings. Those workers are in the mining industry.

In one decade there has been a massive increase in exports from mining from $428m to $4,657m. In 10 years $459m was spent on environmental protection and only 30,500 hectares of land were mined. Therefore, 99.99 per cent of Australian land was untouched by mining ventures. One could hardly say that mining is a great blot on the environment although there are cases where more should have been done. The point I want to make is that if city dwellers want to maintain their standards of living, their roads and their parks they should stop knocking the mining industry. No country, no matter how well developed it is, can afford to do without this kind of income.

Mr Fisher:

– And rural industry too.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– That is right. I have some good workers in that industry. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, we must make sure that the conditions are right to encourage development. My opinion is that it would be madness to do otherwise.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-First of all I should refer to the speech by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Fitzpatrick). I am sure that some of his colleagues could well have listened to some of the words of advice he issued on this occasion. I wish to refer to the Department of National Development, particularly the water resources program administered through that Department. In the past few months in my electorate and along the Murray Valley basin we have seen many successful attempts by various groups and organisations which, through cooperation and understanding, have combated the parochialism that has existed in dealing with the problems of the Murray Valley for many years. I believe that the nettle must now be grasped by governments, both Federal and State. They should forget about political expediency and be initiators rather than reactionaries and make genuine efforts to preserve the Murray River for future generations.

The Murray River system is presently being used well beyond its capacity. We are all aware that many of the problems of the system today are the predictable consequences of controlling natural hydrological processes. Land salinisation, water logging, river bank erosion and impairment of river quality with its associated social and economic implications are some of the results of these conflicts in water and associated land use. Priorities have been given and must continue to be given to works and measures which have as their main objective the consolidation of existing urban and rural settlements, and also the protection of our existing infrastructure together with the stabilisation of existing rural enterprises.

On 24 October last year an important agreement was reached on an approach to look at the River Murray problems on an overall catchment basis. This co-ordinated four-government approach resulted from a meeting called by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) and the three appropriate State Ministers. This was basically the first time that an agreement to tackle in a concerted effort Murray River Basin problems at their source had been achieved. The plan of action devised was that, even under present arrangements in which the River Murray Commission does not have the power to concern itself with many water quality problems, governments will be enabled to take steps in their own areas of responsibility. Of course, a necessary requirement for any successful action is money. I believe that a most successful and significant water resources program has been developed with a Federal Government capital base of $200m over live years. This, together with dollar for dollar contributions by the States, provides a program that allows not only scope for immediate and urgent work to be funded but also a real opportunity- in fact it is the first real opportunity- to undertake major remedial works. The Minister now responsible for these matters, the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) has, I believe, responded to requests from the States for priority works and to announcements in recent times of decisions to carry out such works as tube well interceptor bores in the Mildura-Merbein area of the river and other drainage and evaporation basin works in the Wakool of New South Wales. Similar remedial works in South Australia are presently being carried out under this particular water resources program.

At this stage I ask the Minister for National Development to clear up some of the confusion that has been created in the Senate by Senator McLaren’s mentioning that this water resources program is a little bit of a gimmick and that the money has been made available only on the basis of 30 per cent being provided as a grant and 70 per cent as loan money at the bond rate of interest. I believe that this matter should be cleared up very quickly because it is my understanding that the $200m which is being provided by the Commonwealth is basically grant money but that loans can be initiated if it is felt that that is in the best interests of the people for whom the money is being provided.

All of us have over the years been able to assess visually the damage caused by piecemeal remedial measures that transmit the drainage and salinity problems of one district to another. Some of these measures have seriously threatened the important ecology of the region and some of them have contributed to saline drainage water entering the Murray River. Other measures have restricted throughout the length of the Murray an adequate minimum flow which is so necessary to prevent high salinity levels.

Over the years we have had a series of reports on inquiries carried out by highly competent people. Lack of action on some of these reports has no doubt overtaken many proposed measures that were considered to be satisfactory at the time. However, one point is obvious in most of the reports that have been produced, namely, that the inquiries which produced those reports have been conducted with restraints. Sometimes these restraints have been of a political nature, but generally they have been financial. Sometimes the inquiry held did not have sufficient scope to deal with the matter at hand. An example was the proposals regarding stage one of the Tyrrel scheme as developed by the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission of Victoria. That inquiry into overall river improvement was restrictive because of several factors. Firstly, the objective for the proposed works was to control any detriment to river quality attributable to works under construction in the Shepparton region. Secondly, it was restrictive for financial reasons because, despite the accepted alternative of piping water directly to the ocean, that has not been recommended. It was also restrictive because it understandably has been assessed relative to further proposals which depend on whether the proposals relating to the transmitting of saline water to Lake Tyrrel are carried out.

The important thing is that every group and every government involved in the Murray Valley Basin recognises that water quality is possibly more critical to the future quality of life in this region than is even crude oil and that, while using it, we have to use it to the maximum, appreciating that it is a limited commodity. We must ensure that every water user, in both the upper and lower reaches of the river and its tributaries, has an equal need and an equal entitlement to share the quality and quantity of this valuable resource. We have to ensure that this system which supports an intensely successful decentralisation effort remains stable and also has the ability to absorb future growth. It is also essential that, with our changing lifestyles and work patterns, we do not increase the pressure on the Murray River, which will eventually be needed for leisure and recreation purposes, without providing the necessary infrastructure to cope with these pressures. Finally, we have to ensure that the Murray system, which encompasses a diverse and unique habitat and a sensitive ecology, is perserved for future generations.

Perhaps the most essential move is the development of some overall authority or consulting mechanism which has a broader base than that which is presently contained within the authority of the River Murray Commission. The authority of the River Murray Commission basically relates entirely to the construction of works, hydraulic operation and distribution and allocation of water under its control. The River Murray Commission does not have the power to investigate the planning or implementation of corrective measures. It does not have any right to be involved in the granting or otherwise of water diversion processes. It does not have any control over river pollution. Even a suggestion made by a working party set up in 1973, namely, that a review be made of existing and planned land use so that maximum beneficial use of water was achieved in economic, environmental and social terms, was at that time rejected by all State Ministers.

Comparisons of the situation faced in the Murray River Basin have been made with situations faced by similar authorities overseas. Perhaps the most appropriate and relevant comparison to the River Murray Commission is the Delaware River Basin Commission which was established in 196 1 in the United States of America. I think it is important to recognise that while the situation faced by that particular Commission has some relevance to our situation, it does differ in that the Delaware Basin Commission is basically related to a highly industrialised area which is heavily populated. But it is important to realise that the Commission does not supplant local agencies but in fact co-ordinates, oversees and fills in any gaps. This, I believe, is its key to success. It is a high level policy body with limited operational activities.

I submit then that the River Murray Agreement in its present form does not deal adequately, effectively or efficiently with immediate and future problems of the river. It is therefore essential that recommendations be made which ensure that urgent action is taken, that proposals are developed that do not continue to frustrate irrigators along the length of the Murray in their efforts to reduce their problems. It is also important, however, that projects that are recommended are broad enough in scope for their effectiveness to be high. It is also important that such projects obtain total community and government support and that basically they are not calculated by means of short term considerations, whether these be financial or political, in regard to the overall problems of the Murray River Basin.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-This Government and its Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) and its Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) do not have a national energy policy. Despite the posturing of the Minister for Trade and Resources, we tolerate a virtually open situation in which mining corporations and overseas customers make basic decisions as to exploration, investment, development, production and export quotas. Australia is one of several nations which are virtually self-sufficient in energy resources, with the possible exception of oil; I will come to that matter later. But, massive as our reserves are, they are not inexhaustible, as the Minister seems to think. We need a national fuel and energy commission to oversee, monitor and participate in exploration, development and export marketing. I am afraid that this Government definitely lacks such a policy.

In 1974 and 1975 the Labor Minister for Minerals and Energy, the late Rex Connor, prevented the Japanese steel industry from exploiting Australian coal producers. The Nippon steel company then, as it does now, negotiated with all Australian coal and iron ore producers on behalf of all Japanese steel mills. Connor’s great victory was that he was able to force the Australian coal producers- those involved with both open cut and underground mining- to act together and not to allow themselves to be played off against each other by a well organised and determined Japanese steel industry. In April 1975 the benefit was apparent. The gap between Utah Queensland open cut coal and New South Wales south coast underground coal was narrowed substantially to $46.50 and $48.80 respectively. Since 1975 the Japanese once again have been reverting to their former practices. Once again the future of less profitable underground mines is threatened.

In New South Wales Kembla Coal and Coke Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of the Conzinc Riotinto organisation, after having invested $54m in a new underground mine, Westcliff, with a total capacity of 2.2 million tonnes annually, is yet to produce more than one million tonnes from that mine. Total contracts to sell 2.3 million tonnes per year to Japan from two Kembla Coal and Coke mines have never been realised. Prices will be reviewed again in March 1979. Obviously the Japanese will use the same tactics as they recently used against the iron ore producers in Western Australia to reduce the present contract price of $48 a ton. What will the Minister for Trade and Resources do to rationalise pricing for underground and open-cut coal? We are favoured with huge coal resources in the Bowen Basin in Queensland, the Hunter Valley and the South Coast areas of New South Wales. Now a new major discovery has been made in the Gunnedah area of New South Wales. But we cannot allow every company to make its own separate development, export and pricing decisions. Only an appropriate Federal authority can rationalise overall development to allow for exports and the preservation of adequate future resources for our own needs.

Mr Deputy Chairman, our oil reserves are dwindling. At the present rate of consumption, in 10 years two-thirds of our oil requirements may be imported at a cost at today’s prices of $2.5 billion plus. We are not alone. By the year 2000 the world’s oil reserves to annual production ratio will have fallen from 22:1 to 10:1. As the Rockefeller Foundation points out, this will lead to further huge oil price increases, with the strong Western economies, such as the United States of America, West Germany and Japan, buying and consuming the lion’s share of what is left of the world’s oU resources. That is why we should be husbanding our existing oil and natural gas reserves. It is little profit ibr us to say that we will purchase imported oil with proceeds from natural gas and coal sales if no oil is left in the world for us to buy.

One must be unhappy with the rate of oil exploration despite the super windfall profits of oil companies resulting from the Government’s crude oil pricing policies and the $700m-odd accruing to government this year. Only $450m has been earmarked by 14 companies for oil exploration off the west coast of Australia and $500m by two companies for oil exploration in Bass Strait over the next six years. That is not enough. The $450m to be spent on the Exmouth Plateau represents only 68 per cent of this year’s Federal revenue rip-off from the oil industry. So much for the argument that oil companies need super profits to look for more oil. They are just not using those windfall profits to look for more oil.

Mr Baillieu:

– What are they doing with it?

Mr WEST:

-I do not know that; the honourable member who interjected might know. They certainly are not using it all for oil exploration. Let me examine the proposal by the multinational consortium to develop the North West Shelf natural gas reserves on the Rankin Trend. The capital cost is estimated at $3 billion. It is proposed to export 53 per cent of production to Japan and the United States west coast, with the remainder being sold in the Perth and Pilbara regions. Despite allegations that 70 per cent of the development infrastructure might be purchased from overseas, I am not against this development and neither is my party. But we make the clear assertion that the export levels ought to be conditional on adequate future reserves being available for Australian industrial and domestic use.

In addition there are other possibilities for use in an oil hungry country, such as converting natural gas, which is predominantly methane, to methanol and ultimately to petrol. The New Zealand Government is examining this possibility to reduce its reliance on imported oil. New Zealand has decided to proceed with design work for a $100m methanol plant. We ought to be examining the methanol option. Methanol can be blended with petrol up to 20 per cent without making major changes to a petrol engine. More importantly, Mobil Oil Ltd has developed a process whereby it is hoped that petrol might be produced from methanol quite cheaply, at around 10c a gallon for the conversion. It could be that instead of exporting 53 per cent of North West Shelf gas to Japan we should produce methanol from natural gas and, hopefully, eventually petrol from methanol. I might add that methanol can be produced from coal also, but it is easier and much cheaper to use natural gas.

It is essential also that we examine our overall gas reserves as they stand now. Reserves now in production total 314,500 million cubic metres and further estimated reserves total 528,000 million cubic metres, including 472,000 million cubic metres on the North West Shelf. Let us look at what we have in the States. Victoria is supplied from reserves in Bass Strait, which total 202,000 million cubic metres. In 1977 Victoria used 3,256 million cubic metres. Even at that present rate the known Bass Strait reserves will be exhausted in 60-odd years. Similarly, in South Australia the Cooper Basin reserves supply South Australia and New South Wales. Those reserves total 91,000 million cubic metres and current usage is 2,405 million cubic metres a year. They will be exhausted in 38 years. The North West Shelf reserves total 472,000 million cubic metres. It is proposed to export 53 per cent of those reserves; that is, 6.5 million tons of liquefied natural gas a year, or 250,000 million cubic metres. These exports along with Western Australian domestic usage mean that the North West Shelf reserves could vanish in 20 or 30 years.

Large as our reserves are, they are very small compared with the reserves of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I mention for the purpose of comparison that the Soviet Union’s reserves total 18 trillion, or 18 million million, cubic metres. Yet the Soviet Union is exporting only 8 per cent of its annual yield of 0.345 trillion cubic metres. The unmistakable conclusion is that despite claims that the export income at this level is required to generate early cash flow and to provide oil and gas exploration funds, if little more oil is to be found within Australia it may be that we are being foolish in exporting such a very large percentage of such a precious and viable alternative to petroleum. It may be also that the North West Shelf fields should become the future major reservoir for industrial and domestic gas consumption within Australia.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)-

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– I wish to take up a number of items of the Budget under the appropriations for the Department of National Development and the Department of Trade and Resources and to allude to several items under the appropriations for the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development because they are relevant to the first items. In the earlier debate on the Budget I talked about the energy crisis we have now. It is a world crisis. I mentioned our resources and the uneven way in which we are using them. Then came aspects of our energy policy and the future of energy. We looked at the long term, when the power of the hydrogen bomb will be harnessed in controlled fusion. In the medium time scale we will use the nuclear power of uranium and thorium and solar power, though it is limted in the overall situation. In the short term we in Australia will have a liquid fuel crisis. This Government has made four positive approaches: Moving oil prices to world parity price; conservation; looking for alternatives; and increased oil exploration.

I now draw attention to the items in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79 which show that this Government has appreciated the energy crisis and is doing something about it. Under the division for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, for expenditure under the Atomic Energy Act, the appropriation for running expenses totals $22,534,000. This is almost $lm more than the figure appropriated last year and is to be expended upon research and development, upon keeping up with the rest of the world against the day when in Australia we have, as we must, atomic power stations. The sooner we see nuclear power stations in Australia the better. We cannot continue to se our small resources of oil and gas for main line power generation, wasting our valuable coal, which must be saved as a source of hydrocarbons.

For the Ranger uranium project, the payment to Australian Atomic Energy Commission, or otherwise, of a sum of $20m is provided. This is a new item and provides funds for the Commonwealth’s involvement in the development of the Ranger project. It relates to the joint venture agreement with Peko-Wallsend Operation Ltd and Electrolytic Zinc Co., of Australia to mine uranium in the Northern Territory. The contribution of the Commonwealth, through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, will be 72.5 per cent of the capital expenditure involved. The companies will contribute 13.75 per cent each. On the operating side, the Commonwealth will contribute 50 per cent and the companies 25 per cent each. The total capital cost spread over several financial years is estimated to be $32 lm. To that sum contribution by the Commonwealth for 1978-79 will total $44m. That will be financed by this Budget appropriation of $20m, and by borrowings on the part of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission of some $24m. The figure for 1978-79 should have been considerably higher, but unfortunately the protracted negotiations with the Northern Land Council have meant that no work will be done before the wet season. This makes the next appropriation item rather inappropriate. I refer to the provision of $125,000 for the reimbursement of legal and other expenses of the Northern Land Council. I hope that it is to be in the form of a loan, to be repaid when the royalties start pouring in.

Some further items that fit in the general run of expenses associated with the overall nuclear energy program include capital works for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission- again under the Atomic Energy Act- for which $1.25m, only $1 1 1,000 more than was appropriated last year, is to be provided. Another is the contribution of $30,000 towards the administrative costs of the Uranium Advisory Council- a new item.

In keeping with the Government’s energy policy there are in the Bill another three new items. The first is the provision of $848,000 for the Australian- West German coal liquefaction feasibility study. The second is $4m for the energy research, development and demonstration program. The third is $50,000 for the National energy conservation publicity campaign.

Two items under the appropriation for the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development are in keeping with the recommendations of the Fox report and the Government’s commitment to preservation of the environment adjacent to mines. They relate to the provision for the Supervising Scientist and the Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute. The appropriation for protection of the environment under the Alligator Rivers Region Act is $760,000- a new item for services. For capital works and laboratory equipment the provision is $430,000, as compared with $85,603 last year. The Act provides for the appointment of a supervising scientist to oversee measures for the protection of the environment of the Region from the effects of uranium mining. It also establishes a co-ordinating committee and a research institute for the Region. Thus far the Supervising Scientist’s activities have been concentrated upon obtaining precise environment base line data for the area, including the construction of a temporary field research station. This information, as I learned when visiting the area, is vital. The continual natural presence in the creek system of sulphate ions had been established. One can easily envisage at a later date the ……….:–’ finding sulphate ions and gleefully pointing to an insufficient containment of the sulphuric acid that is used in processing the ore. The scientists have logged all aspects of water flow and the complete cleansing action of the wet season.

I come now to the most vital aspect of the energy crisis- capital. There is a major interaction between the ability to sustain stable economic growth and the ability to supply the energy needs of the world. This situation is most clearly and crucially met in the problems of generating the enormous quantities of capital that will be needed to provide the new energy systems of the world and the international trade in energy sources. If major moves to solve the problem of energy substitution are too long delayed so that they coincide with a period of steeply-increasing oil and gas prices, it will not be possible to accumulate the immense amounts of capital that are required. We cannot begin putting capital aside, but we can push atomic energy research and development and conservation. The world depends on it and Australia, as a major energy supplier, must play a big role.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston) seems to think that he has all the answers to the questions of the uranium industry; that unless uranium is exported the industries of the world will fail. Sad to relate, the major element that will defeat the uranium industry in the world will be that of its economics. More and more, the true costs of the nuclear industry are being exposed. For instance, only in the last few weeks has the waste at Maralinga been exposed. Honourable members opposite may laugh, but what will be the cost of policing that nuclear waste for the next 300,000 years? What are the real costs of enrichment and waste disposal to the nuclear power industry? These are the costs that, more and more, have to be taken into consideration.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, 1 rise to a point of order. I would like the honourable member to tell us about the economics of uranium in Communist Russia. I am sure that he would know.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)-

Order! There is no point of order.

Mr UREN:

– Let me answer that scurrilous intervention. Let us be clear on this. This honourable gentleman from Bendigo asks about the Soviet Union. The truth is that more than half of all the enriched uranium in Western Europe is treated in the Soviet Union. When the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development wish to have uranium enriched in the Soviet Union everything seems to be all right, but when the honourable member for Bendigo wishes to indulge in a Red witch hunt he likes to make what he calls his personal score, making innuendoes against me. As far as I am concerned, the whole of the nuclear power industry in the Western world, which we can do something about, should be stopped. All citizens of the world should be able to protest against it, and I am sure that eventually world opinion will stop the nuclear power industries in even the communist world as well as in the noncommunist world. The whole question of nuclear waste is unresolved. It will affect the whole of humanity for evermore.

Government members interjecting-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order!

Mr UREN:

– Other honourable members have been heard in peace by the Committee but since I rose there has been a continual run of interjections. I shall give figures on some of the estimates, or the guesstimates, of the need for nuclear power. It was suggested back in 1970 that Organisation for Economic Co-opertion and Development countries alone would need 600,000 megawatts of nuclear generated electricity annually by 1985. By the time the first Fox report was presented in 1976 the estimate was down to 400,000 megawatts being needed by 1985. But in May 1977 the OECD estimates were down to 225,000 megawatts. This is a decline of 44 per cent over the previous year or 60 per cent over seven years. There was an exponential growth in the world economy in the late 1960s and early 1970s with a corresponding growth in the need for energy. Now because the world economy has flattened out there is generally not the need for greater energy in those countries. Order after order for nuclear generating plants is being cancelled in the United States. The orders are failing and in fact the nuclear component industry is under threat. The great issue that this Government has to answer -

Government members interjecting-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)Order! Honourable members on my right were heard in silence and the honourable member for Reid has the same right to be heard in silence.

Mr UREN:

– Let us look at the report of the Ranger inquiry, which the Whitlam Government set up. Finding 3 of the first Fox report states:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war. This is the most serious hazard associated with the industry.

That warning was given in the third finding of the Fox report. Every time I quote this finding and try to tell the Government of the interrelationship of urnaium mining with the nuclear power industry and nuclear weapons it does not want to hear about it. However, I will refer the Government back again to the third finding of the first Fox report. The trouble is that the Government does not know the answers to these unresolved problems. We of the Labor Party have said that these problems need to be resolved before we mine uranium. We have said that the problems of waste disposal and the proliferation of nuclear weapons are still unresolved. The whole question of the economics of the industry in Australia is not yet known. The question of the attitude of the Aboriginal people to uranium rnining is still unresolved. The environmental problem of the Kakadu National Park also is unresolved. We should not mine uranium until these issues are resolved.

Nuclear waste disposal is such a problem that the United States of America at present has 74 million gallons of toxic liquid waste from its testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere with which it does not know what to do. That is the situation in the United States of America. Yet the Government says there is no problem. The United States of America once had three reprocessing plants. One was controlled and run by the Getty oil company in West Valley, New York State. Another was run by the General Electric company in Morris, Illinois and a third was run by the Allied-General company at Barnwell in South Carolina. These reprocessing plants were closed down by the Carter Administration because of the danger involved. Therefore at this stage there is no way at all, in the United States, of resolving the problem of nuclear waste. This Government first set out on a similar policy to that of the Carter administration. It said that it would not allow any of its uranium to be reprocessed. Initially it looked as though the Australian Government was going to support President Carter and his policy. However, gradually we find that the Government has given way on its policy of no reprocessing. On the one hand the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that the problem of nuclear waste has been solved with what is called vitrification. But to use this system of vitrification as a solution to the nuclear waste problem the waste first must be reprocessed. This process would produce not only unburnt uranium but also plutonium. Therefore this again would add to the spread of nuclear weapons. All I am saying is that the position of sanity is to support the Australian Labor Party’s policy on uranium mining, which is that uranium should not be minded until all these problems have been solved, and indeed so many of the problems are still unresolved.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)-

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Progress reported.

page 1958

ADJOURNMENT

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development- Pope John Paul II -ACTU Jetset Travel Service-International Air Fares-Department of Social Security- Service Station Proprietors

Motion ( by Mr Newman) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I refer to a leading story in the Melbourne Age of 5 October which was headed: ‘Protest Over Public Service

Cuts’ and which concerned the impact on the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development of staff cuts which have been brought about as a result of this year’s Budget. The article refers to the permanent head of the Department, Mr Lansdown, as saying in a letter to the Chairman of the Public Service Board that his Department was ‘a dying institution with morale at rock bottom because of staff cuts’. The article went on to report that Mr Lansdown noted in his letter that the staff of the Department had fallen from more than 1,000 in early 1976 to a proposed 500 by next June and that of the 14 most senior Second Division officers in the Department in early 1976 only four now remain. Mr Lansdown pointed out that the Department had been through three major reorganisations since January 1 976 during which many of the staff had been sustained by the hope that things could not get worse. However, they had got worse and staff now expected them to worsen further.

Whilst the article draws attention to the plight of the staff of a department which has been the victim of a radical change of priorities, this is not my principal concern in raising this matter tonight. Staff of government departments must be expected to suffer change as a result of changes in government priorities. The head of the Department and the staff have accepted these changes until this point without any evidence of public protest. However, one has to be concerned about the implications of the dismantling of this Department to the public of Australia, which depends a great deal for its quality of life on the kind of services which have been the responsibility of this Department. It is clear that the Government has taken no account- I repeat ‘no account’- of these services and of their relative importance in taking the decisions it has about staff ceilings. It is quite clear from the evidence that I have been able to gather that the Department was simply issued by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) with a succession of orders to reduce staff. It was made clear that there were to be no negotiations or discussions.

It is also quite clear that the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development has tried with commendable concern to rationalise its staff, through a period of savage cuts, in such a way as would allow it to maintain intact those functions which it has been given to perform. However, this whole process of rationalisation appears to have taken place behind closed doors with virtually no opportunity being given to the public or the Parliament to scrutinise the real impact of the progressive emasculation.

What appears to be quite clear is that this Department cannot in any real sense perform the charter which was given to the Department of Urban and Regional Development by the Labor Government or even to continue to carry out efficiently the revised goals and tasks which were established when the late Senator Greenwood was Minister. It is clearly a misnomer to describe the Department as the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development because the environmental and community development responsibilities of the Department, while remaining on paper, cannot possibly be performed on the scale and at the depth originally envisaged.

There is not the time, within the context of a brief adjournment debate, to canvass these issues in great depth. However, I believe that it is incumbent upon the Minister and the Government to inform the Parliament clearly of what functions the Department is capable of performing with its present level of staff, which functions which were performed by the Department of Regional and Urban Development have been discontinued and what the Department has been able to do under successive Ministers, and particularly under the present Minister. I raise these matters not because I think that they have in the short run any dramatic electoral appeal, but because I believe that the vital functions which this Department has performed should continue to be performed. I cannot see, in the rationalisation that has taken place, any real attempt to accept the cuts that have been imposed in a way which will ensure that the most important of the functions to be performed by the Department are, in fact, performed. Finally I refer to a second article. It is from the Canberra Times and in it Bruce Juddery wrote:

The urban fringes of the major cities, they believe, will always be a political battlefield. Whatever party is in government will have seats there to lose; whichever is in Opposition will have seats there to win.

The Werriwa by-election, they believe, must intensify pressures on the Federal Government to be seen to be doing something- anything- to alleviate the problems of such areas.

There is no reason to suspect that the people of Werriwa, or of adjoining Mitchell, for that matter, containing the depressed Blacktown area and held by the Liberal, Mr Alan Cadman, are going to accept assurances that urban problems (under the New Federalism) are the responsibility of State and local governments-

I believe that the dismantling of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order!

Mr HOWE:

-. . . has taken place without -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HOWE:

-. . . the Parliament being given the real facts -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr HOWE:

-. . . as to what functions are being cut back.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Batman must realise that it is highly disorderly to persist in speaking when the Chair is addressing the House.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-Today, the Church has a new Pope and the world has a new leader of peace and goodwill for all mankind. A few short hours ago a puff of white smoke signalled the election of the 264th successor to St Peter. Minutes later a quarter of a million people crammed into St Peter’s Square and heard Cardinal Felice proclaim the traditional words ‘Habemus Papam’ announcing the election of Pope John Paul II. After a 32-hour conclave, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, 58-year old son of Poland and Archbishop of Cracow and joint leader of 35 million Polish Catholics, became Supreme Pontiff of the world’s 700 million Catholics. He became the first non-Italian Pope for 455 years- a remarkable achievement for a man who on 18 May 1920 was born in Wadowice, the son of a factory worker. A factory worker and miner himself in his earlier years, he suffered forced labour during the Nazi occupation of Poland in World War II- at the same time studying in secrecy for the priesthood he so dearly wished to attain. He was ordained on 1 November 1946 and his academic brilliance was recognised when he was immediately transferred to Rome where he studied for two years. Appointed Archbishop of Cracow in 1964, it came as no surprise when he was created Cardinal during the Consistory of 26 June 1 967.

Of sturdy build, round faced, firm jawed and with silver-grey hair, this newly created Prince of the Church, fluent in French, Italian, English and German and powerful in his native tongue, attained joint leadership of his Church in Poland with the heroic Cardinal Wyszynski. A profound man with strong pastoral leanings, he delighted Australians with his warmth and humour when he visited this country in 1973. He now succeeds the smiling Pope John Paul I, whose promising reign was tragically cut short after merely 33 days. Only last year the new Pope, addressing the Synod of Bishops in Rome, warned of the threat of ‘programmed atheism’ and the ‘anti catechism of the secular’. He brings to his high office the rich tradition and spirituality of the Polish people. He now brings to the world his message of peace and goodwill for all men and women of all creeds and all nations.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Many members of trade unions and their families in this country will be able to enjoy overseas travel because of the initiative and industry of Mr R. J. Hawke and the organisation of which he is the head- the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Scurrilous allegations have been made in the House that there are irregularities in the arrangements of ACTU Jetset Travel Services Pty Ltd. Even worse still, it is alleged, on the basis of no evidence, that the funds of various trade unions are being plundered to provide the discount for those travelling through the ACTU scheme. Character assassination of people who are not members of this House and who therefore are unable to respond in the forum where the unfounded allegations are made seem to be the order of the day for Government members.

Without indictment or trial, one of the most responsible and respected persons in this community, Mr Bob Hawke, has been vilified in a way which would warrant successful legal action if the words were spoken outside the umbrella of privilege that this House provides. Wild emotive expressions such as ‘laundered money’, ‘unionists’ funds and fees’, ‘blackmail’, ‘blatantly threatening standover tactics’, ‘illegal money’what the hell illegal money is I don’t know- and a whole host of wild assertions are used to try to denigrate the name and character of Bob Hawke.

It seems that Mr Hawke cannot express a view of his own or of the 2 million-odd workers he represents without those with inferior intellects interpreting his words- any words no matter how factual or representative of those who support him and in whatever sense he uses them- as threats. The paranoia of honourable members opposite is such that they no longer listen to reason and cannot heed a warning but must interpret any warning given in the interest of industrial peace as a threat and, indeed, blackmail. The most scurrilous attack is the comparison by inference of Mr Hawke with Mr Peter Huxley. It is quite clear that the inference is that Mr Bob Hawke is an embezzler. The best information I can obtain is that Peter Huxley was quite a prominent person in New South Wales and was finally gaoled for embezzlement. I am sure that that is not the sort of statement that any honourable member of this House would make outside of this chamber; yet it has been made inside. To me it is the most cowardly and scurrilous attack that anybody could ever make on an individual, particularly when the individual, Bob Hawke, has endeavoured to do something on behalf of the people of this country and to provide them with an opportunity to travel overseas.

Further attacks were made on the man’s character. It was even suggested that he would be responsible for a large number of employees of Qantas Airways Ltd losing their employment.

Mr Humphreys:

– It is terrible.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-It is terrible, as the honourable member for Griffith says, that people in this community who are trying to do the right thing by those they represent, who are providing leadership and initiative and establishing enterprises in the community, should be subjected to such vilification without any substance whatsoever. Evidence is contained in a newspaper of the raid on the headquarters of the organisation on Saturday. It is now only Tuesday of the following week. No evidence has been presented to this House that anything illegal was involved, yet this attack has been made. A very responsible member of the community has been vilified and held up to ridicule.

As I said earlier, were these comments made by these gallant and honourable gentlemen outside this chamber the results would be altogether different. It is quite noteworthy that it is only under the umbrella of privilege that this House has traditionally extended to its members that these attacks and reflections on people’s characters are made. I think the most disgraceful aspect of the matter is likening Mr Hawke who has done more for the trade unionists of this country than anybody else to a well known embezzler from New South Wales. I think that sort of comment deserves an unconditional apology to a man of the character of Mr Hawke.

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

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

-Tonight in the adjournment debate I would like to pay a tribute to the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). I think there comes a time in the Parliament when it is important that the members recognise when a Minister has done a particular task in a resolute and fair-minded way with the highest objectives and principles in mind. The House should take note of this action. We have as the Minister for Transport at the moment the honourable member for Gippsland. One of the first initiatives on which he embarked when he took up his appointment in the Fraser Government was to see that the opportunity should be given to the widest range of Australians for access to a lower cost of air travel on international routes. This objective meets the wishes of the people of my electorate who have been requesting it of all Australian governments for a considerable number of years- particularly during the years between 1972 and 1975 when they were completely disenfranchised.

In approaching this task the Minister had to face the fact that there had been a dramatic escalation in the cost of international air travel in those years which I mentioned. In his approach to this matter the Minister has been completely determined that a number of criteria should be adopted. Included in those criteria, for instance, is the fact that any lower cost or charter air flight that leaves Australia should be available to every Australian who wishes to travel in that way. Such opportunities should not be available only to members of a particular trade union, a particular association of trade unions, a political party or indeed any other specific group of people. On the contrary, they should be available to any Australian who wishes to utilise such a service. In addition the Minister has been resolute in the view that there should be no variation in the standard or quality of service operated by such airlines or in the access to that service.

More particularly, with the interests of all Australians at heart he is insisting that such flights will be available out of all the major capital cities. That opportunity presently does not exist; it never has existed. The Minister is determined that he will not approve charter or lower cost fares out of Australia unless such opportunities are available through all of those ports. Furthermore, the Minister is insisting that the standard of service that will be operated will be comfortable for those people who will travel on that service. That is, he will not approve of an airline- I stress that there have been some airlines in this category- that thinks it is appropriate to add another 50 or more seats to a Boeing 747 aircraft, particularly when six or eight toilets in that aircraft have to be removed. This is what the Minister for Transport is seeking to bring about.

As his statement that was made in the House during the last week or so pointed out, he is within an ace of being able to announce to the Parliament and to the country that he has achieved this goal. I would have thought that with the interests of all Australians at heart Opposition members would be prepared to support the Minister in what he is doing rather than carry on with a low quality, not thought out smear campaign to discredit one of the most able Ministers who has ever been in this Parliament and certainly the most able Minister for Transport in the 1970s.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-Back bench members on both sides of this House have many important duties to perform in their various electorates. Many problems are attended to on any given day on behalf of their constituents. I am of the opinion that the Department of Social Security is deliberately hindering members in the performance of their duties. It is a direct result of this Department’s mean economic policies and its punitive attitude to those people who are adversely affected by those policies that the average back bench member is required to spend so much of his time acting as a go-between on behalf of his constituents with the Department of Social Security or explaining as best he can the policies of that Department to sorely aggrieved constituents. Although government policies for the most part have been responsible for sending large numbers of the population to join dole queues and welfare lines, the Government has consistently avoided or denied its responsibility for caring for these people, preferring instead to capitalise on their misfortunes and victimise them by referring to them as dole bludgers or welfare fat cats.

Many employees of the Department of Social Security owe their inspired ignorance to this sort of government irresponsibility and insensitivity. Recently in the course of handling a constituent’s social security problem I had the occasion to talk to a departmental officer whose job, I believe, is to handle problems of this nature. The officer created what apparently was misapprehension about what the Department of Social Security is supposed to do. My unbureaucratic mind had supposedly misconstrued the proper bureaucratic function and purpose of the Department. He said: ‘You know, we are not here to assist people on the basis of need. I just want to make it clear from the start that social security payments have nothing to do with need. There is no mention of need in the Social Security Act.’ He suggested that it was the role of members of this House to make that point clear to the public.

The problem that I had raised concerned a man who had applied for unemployment benefit eight weeks ago. That man had a wife and two children who had not received the benefit because they were living on several acres- unfilled acreage- so that his case had to be investigated. Eight weeks after registering the inspector had still not shown up. What really is abhorrent is not so much the Department’s lack of diligence in this matter as its attitude that was clearly demonstrated by this departmental officer. I do not believe that it is the opinion of a lone individual in the Department. I think in fact that there is an attitude of indifference throughout the Department. The laissez-faire attitude of some departmental officers demonstrates gross neglect and injustice. I should remind honourable members that to do injustice is more distasteful than to suffer it.

As well tonight I would like to discuss the question of proper identification for social security benefits. Unnecessary hardship is being imposed on the genuinely unemployed by the proof of identity requirements for unemployment benefit applicants. The forms of identification include an original birth, baptismal or marriage certificate or an extract of same issued at least S years ago; a group certificate covering a total of at least 6 months of full time employment; a passport; a recent school report or reference written on official school paper; an original motor registration form in the claimant’s own name; a credit card showing the claimant’s full name and address; a rates or water account made out in the claimant’s name and showing his or her current address; or an insurance policy in the claimant’s name issued at least 2 years ago.

Until recently a taxation assessment notice for the year was acceptable. It has been determined by the Department that it should no longer be so. A driving licence or a savings bank pass book without supporting evidence is also unacceptable. Whilst my colleagues and I understand that it is necessary to impose rules in order to prevent fraud, these rules must not discriminate against some unfortunate applicants for unemployment benefit. I cannot understand why the Department cannot comprehend that many people who become unemployed, especially school leavers, do not have passports, do not have credit cards, do not have insurance policies and do not have rate notices. As well there are many complications in obtaining an original birth, baptismal or marriage certificate or one at least 5 years old.

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

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

– I rise to support my friend, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), in wishing the new Pope a happy reign. The sincere hope of all Christians is that he will be able to work for the betterment of mankind, for the poor and underprivileged. Certainly, he has had the right background to appreciate all the problems in the world today. With the responsibility of representing over 700 million Catholics and faced also with the prospect of trying to heal some of the problems in the world today, I sincerely hope that his reign is a longer one than that of Pope John Paul 1. 1 hope that Pope John Paul II reigns successfully with a realisation that we have problems in the world today. With his humble beginnings, I believe that he is the right man. I am certain that tonight the 35 million Polish Catholics will be extremely proud of this man. He came from humble beginnings but is now the leader of 700 million Catholics in the world today. He is a person to whom other Christians will look for guidance and hope in the future.

The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), a man with a similar background to mine, must realise that everybody in the world today is human and is apt to make mistakes. The difficulty we face today is to determine who is justifiably needy and who may- I emphasise the word ‘may’- be abusing the system. That is the problem this Government is faced with today. It has to sort out the number of people who are abusing the system at the expense of other people. Sometimes one hears in the community the sheer hypocrisy of people- I am not referring to the honourable member for Griffith, because he is not a bad fellow- saying that money is being used and abused whilst on the other side of the coin they are saying that people are in need. I have said it before and I think most honourable members will agree with me that we have to try to find a solution to this massive problem. We have to try to sort out the people who are abusing the system at the expense of people who are in need.

I think that the honourable member for Griffith must realise that within the Department of Social Security there are people who probably are unaware of some of the massive social problems with which this Government is faced, with which governments of the past have been faced and with which governments of the future will be faced. I hope that he will realise also that there are many service station proprietors, his previous occupation, who are in need of assistance and guidance not only from this Government but from parliamentarians in this place. I believe that what has been happening to the service station proprietors in Australia today can only be described as cardinally wrong. They are being used and abused by massive oil companies.

Mr Howe:

– Papally wrong.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-That is a pretty good description of it too. I am lost for words tonight. Coming back to the point, we have to realise that there are about 16,000 service station proprietors in Australia today who are being used by oil companies. I do not altogether blame the oil companies. The circumstances of the oil industry change from day to day. Unfortunately, these poor proprietors are the victims of this change due to the rationalisation of the industry and due to the introduction of the oil companies into the retail market, due to price cutting -

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Lack of sensitivity.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-Due to the complete lack of sensitivity. Just because service station proprietors are dressed in overalls and just because they do not present themselves like mee distinctive perfect businessmen, honourable members opposite are apt to forget about them.

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

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-We have seen the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) from time to time bleed in here on a wholly singular basis about the deprivations, disadvantages and hardships being suffered by service station proprietors. For heaven’s sake, I wish he would be frank with the service station proprietors and bluntly tell them that he cannot get the support of his own colleagues in this place. At one stage, the honourable member for Franklin was talking about adopting the recommendations of the fourth report of the Royal Commission into Petroleum Marketing. We tended to support him on that but he has switched off that now. The Government has switched to another tack of blaming the Australian Council of Trade Unions for that not being implemented. The fact is that the honourable member for Franklin wants to say one thing in Tasmania about the problems of service station proprietors but votes with his head in his hands in another fashion in this place. I say to him: Please be frank because those men and women in the service station industry are suffering. They are bleeding as a result of the policies of this Government. The Government has turned its back on the hardships and the needs, particularly of sole proprietors of service stations. It is not enough for a back bench member to stand up in this place and try to get a bit of cheap publicity back home but to vote in a different fashion in this place. The honourable member for Franklin should be honest and should do something positive if he is sincere.

I refer to the remarks of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) on air fares. He sought to present a case for the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). I would have thought that the Minister for Transport was big enough, old enough and experienced enough to look after himself without the honourable member for La Trobe trying to put a case for him. The facts are that the people of this country are being denied and will be denied for some time yet the benefits and advantages of cheaper international air fares and cheaper domestic air fares because of the imcompetence, the bungling and the maladministration of the Department of Transport.

Let me remind the House that a week after we announced last year that a future Labor government would carry out a complete review of aviation arrangements in this country the Minister jumped in and said: ‘We will review domestic aviation’! How was it reviewed? It was not reviewed in a public fashion where the submissions could be tested and where the people making claims about services could be asked to support and to substantiate the claims they were making. Rather it was reviewed by a back door committee- an in-club arrangement- of the Department. It did not want to get the consumers involved and it did not want to get the airlines to come out in the open and say what they might do and what they could not do in the industry. We said that the Government should not look at domestic aviation by itself because it is inseparably linked to international aviation. Domestic aviation has a 10 per cent traffic flow-on from international aviation. We said that the Government should look at both aspects together and that they both should be the subject of one public inquiry. A few months later, on 1 1 October last year, the Government announced an inquiry into international aviation. If that inquiry had been public, if the government had come clean and if all the proponents of the various policies had been asked to substantiate their claims publicly we could have had cheaper international air fares. Now we have this sytem of total chaos, of confusion and deferred travel. This has arisen because of the manner in which the Minister for Transport has handled the whole issue. He does not deserve any credit. He deserves to be criticised for the manner in which he has handled the issue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! It being 11.0 p.m., the debate is interrupted.

Mr Groom:

– I require the debate to be extended.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m.

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Braddon · LP

– I will not delay the House for any great length of time, but I do want to respond to the very brief remarks made earlier by the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) about the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. I point out to the honourable member that it is a long-standing courtesy that is respected by members of this House for an honourable member who wishes to raise an issue such as this to give notice to the Minister concerned so that the Minister can come along fully equipped to explain the situation to the House and to the honourable member concerned. The honourable member for Batman said in his brief remarks that the Department that I head as Minister is in the process of being disbanded. I want to lay that lie to rest. There is no such intention on the part of the Government. Certainly it is recognised by the Department and its officers that it is for the Government to determine the priorities of departments. The letter which was mentioned by the honourable member and which was written by Mr Lansdown, the Secretary of the Department, recognised that fact. All the people in the Department recognise that it is for the Government to determine priorities.

This Department, of which I am very proud, employs a great number of decent, hardworking, loyal public servants. They are very dedicated people who are doing a great job in the national interest. The Department is administering many programs which are recognised by the Government as important programs. Those programs will certainly continue. I simply take this opportunity- I thank the honourable member for giving it to me- to commend the Secretary of the Department, Mr Lansdown, and the Director of Environment, Mr Higgs, as well as Mr Butler and all the other officers of the Department for all the very good work that they are doing. Admittedly, because of changes in priorities and changes in numbers within the Department, they are working under difficult circumstances. I recognise that and the Government recognises it. Public servants are often maligned, as politicians are often maligned. I think it is a good thing if sometimes we stand up and express appreciation for the work being done by these people. For example, a number of officers of my Department had to work until 4 o ‘clock this morning on a particular problem. The number of hours worked overtime by senior officers of departments is incredibly high. Again, that is cause for members of the Government saying that we appreciate the sort of work being done.

I would like to be able to go through all of the programs being conducted by the Department, which are important. A great deal of work is being done in the building and housing area and in the area of the environment. In many areas more money is being spent than has been spent previously. Recent decisions have been made in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Heritage Commission and the National Estate. Much work is being done in the area of local government in an advisory capacity. In the area of national parks and wildlife we have established the Kakadu National Park and the Uluru National Park in the Northern Territory. There has been comment recently that we are not spending much on sport, but never before has as much been spent in dollar terms on sport and recreation in this country as is being spent at present. Just the other day we announced a grant of $ 1.33m, which represents an increase of 3316 per cent on the allocation for the previous year. That has not been recognised. That point might have been made by the honourable member. In the area of youth, a lot of good work is being done in the Office of Youth Affairs. Much good work is being done on the uranium issue by the Supervising Scientist. The same applies to many other areas.

I simply say that we do appreciate that this work is being done and being done well by officers of the Department. The Department certainly will continue to operate. At the moment I am in the process of looking at the role of the Department with a view to dealing with some of the uncertainties that have been raised in recent Press reports. I think it is important that those uncertainties be removed so that the officers of the Department can continue to go from strength to strength in the work that they are doing in the national interest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The debate having concluded, the House is adjourned until 2.15 p.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11.5 p.m.

page 1966

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Interest Rates in Australia and the United States (Question No. 1038)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the current relative differential between medium term borrowing rates in Australia and in the United States of America.
  2. What was the forward margin, expressed as a percentage per annum, for buying US dollars in Australia as at (a) January 1977, (b) July 1977, (c) January 1978 and (d) April 1978.
  3. Who sets the forward margins for Australians buying US dollars.
  4. Is it a fact that the Reserve Bank had been pushing down forward margins on the purchase of US dollars below the relative differential in interest rates in the United States of America and Australia.
  5. If so, does this have the effect of pushing the value of the Australian dollar towards parity with the US dollar.
  6. Is it anticipated that this will result in the establishment of an open foreign exchange market in Australia.
Mr Howard:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no single measure of the interest differential between medium term borrowing rates in Australia and the United States of America. Interest rates paid by borrowers tend to vary in relation to term, credit ratings, sources of finance, security, etc The following yields represent no more than a broad guide to interest rate levels in each market:

(Based on Commonwealth Trading Bank forward rates. Rates may differ slightly between trading banks).

  1. Banks are free to set rates at which they will purchase (sell) US dollars (and other foreign currencies) for forward delivery to their customers. In setting rates, banks would normally have regard to the rates set daily by the Reserve Bank, at which it stands ready to buy and sell US dollars forward with banks.
  2. See answers to (1) and (2) above. Forward margins have varied during 1978; they are currently below the level prevailing at the beginning of the year.
  3. and (6) The exchange rate for the Australian dollar is determined under the arrangements announced by the Government in November 1976.

Need to know’ Principle (Question No. 1570)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

What are the criteria for determining the need to know principle.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The criteria used for determining the need to know requirement are that access to classified matter is to be no wider than is necessary for the efficient performance of duties and is to be restricted to authorised persons. This rule applies both within a department and in dealings between departmental personnel and authorised persons outside the department.

Taxation: Offences and Returns (Question No. 1687)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) How many prosecutions were instituted under sections (a) 223, (b) 227, (c) 229, (d) 230 and (e) 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act during (i) 1975, (ii) 1976 and (iii) 1977.
  2. How many of the prosecutions in each of the above categories resulted in a conviction.
  3. How many persons have served or are serving gaol terms as a result of convictions in each of the categories in pan ( 1 ) above.
  4. How many staff of the Australian Taxation Office have, as a major component of their duties, responsibility for ensuring that all persons required to submit tax returns are in fact doing so.
  5. Is he satisfied that sufficient staff are available to meet the responsibilities involved.
  6. Can he estimate how many persons, individuals, companies, partnerships and trusts were required to submit an income tax return for 1976-77.
  7. How many income tax returns have been received up to 31 March 1978 for 1976-77.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. (a) 1975-55,187; 1976-50,666; 1977-40,779. (b) 1975- 352; 1976-231; 1977-443. (c) 1975- nil; 1976- nil; 1977-1. (d) 1 975- nil; 1976-6; 1977-nil. (e) 1975-2; 1976- 2; 1977-1.
  2. (a) 1975-26,844; 1976-25,959; 1977-22,836. (b) 1975-301. (d) 1976-299. (e) 1977-305.

Separate statistics are not maintained for convictions under sections 227, 230 and 23 1 .

  1. 1975-nil; 1976- nil; 1977-1.

In a number of cases proceedings have been discontinued after service of a summons; in others service of a summons has not been achieved. Statistics are not kept, but these discontinuances, together with proceedings finalised in a year subsequent to service of the summons, account for the difference in the numbers stated in the answers to questions (l)and(2).

  1. One in 1977 under section 229.
  2. 5) In addition to the number of staff mentioned in answer to the pervious question, other staff are deployed as necessary to enable the annual work load to be met.
  3. 7,853,000.
  4. 7,413,621.

Use of Imports by Industry (Question No. 1770)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of imports are inputs for secondary industry.
  2. What proportion of these imported inputs are subject to tariffs.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The use of imports by industry is analysed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in preparing input/output tables. The latest year for which input/output statistics have been published is 1968-69 and provisional estimates for 1974-75 are expected to be published early in 1 979. In 1 968-69 39 per cent of imports cif were used as intermediate inputs of manufacturing industry. Imports used in stock accumulation and capital expenditure are not available by industry. However total usage of such imports by all sectors was 1 5 per cent. The total proportion of imports used by manufacturing industry is not available.
  2. The proportion of these inputs subject to tariffs is not known to the ABS. However, of the value of imports used as intermediate inputs of manufacturing industry 6 per cent represented the value of duties paid.

Imports (Question No. 1827)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1) What was the proportion of dutiable imports to total imports for each year from 1 97 1 -72 to 1 977-78.
  2. What was the average rate of duty on dutiable imports each year from 197 1-72 to 1977-78.
  3. What proportion of dutiable imports to total imports was used in making the customs duty estimate for the 1977-78 Budget.
  4. What (a) proportion of dutiable imports to total imports and (b) average rate of duty on dutiable imports was used in estimating customs duty for 1 979-80.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The ratio of ‘dutiable’ imports (estimated as total imports of goods on a recorded trade basis less government imports, civil aircraft and petroleum imports) to total imports of goods for the years 1971-72 to 1977-78 was as follows: (This concept of dutiable imports differs from that presented by the Statistician in his Customs Clearances at Specified

Rates of Duty issued annually, but which for 1977-78 will not be available for some months).

  1. The ratio of duty collected to dutiable imports as defined above for the years 1971-72 to 1977-78 was as follows:
  1. and (4) (a) and (b) The broad outlook for the balance of payments is referred to in Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget Speech and some explanation of revenue forecasts is provided in Statement No. 4.

In view of the necessarily broad nature of these estimates. I do not consider it would be appropriate to go beyond what is said in the Budget documents.

Solar Energy Devices: Tax Concessions (Question No. 1830)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. Are taxation concessions available for companies which install experimental or demonstration solar energy devices.
  2. If so, what is the nature of these concessions and when were they introduced.
  3. How many concessions have been granted in each year of their operation.
  4. What has been the value of taxation concessions granted for these purposes in each year of their operation.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. There are no taxation concessions available specifically for experimental or demonstration solar energy devices. Deductions would be allowable for depreciation and investment allowance where a solar energy device was owned and used by a taxpayer for the purpose of producing assessable income or for carrying on a business. If the device represented plant and was used solely for scientific research purposes an accelerated rate of depreciation would apply. Where the device was built into and formed part of a building used solely for scientific research purposes any expenditure so incurred may be written off over three years. A manufacturer of solar energy devices would be exempt from sales tax in respect of any such devices installed for the purpose of carrying out scientific research in relation to manufacturing operations conducted by him or used in the course of manufacturing goods.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. Not applicable.

Incidence of Lung Cancer and Leukaemia in Oenpelli Region (Question No. 1846)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Mr J. Y. Hancock of the Northern Territory Medical Service in the report ‘Alligator Rivers Region: Environmental Fact Finding Study- Health and Health Problems’ of October 1973 that it has been reported that the incidence of carcinoma of the lung and acute leukaemia is higher in the population centred around Oenpelli, Northern Territory than would be expected.
  2. Have any studies of the health of people living near Oenpelli been conducted since October 1973 to determine whether these reports are accurate.
  3. ) If so, what have been the results of these studies.
  4. If higher than normal incidence of these diseases has been confirmed, what has been determined as the cause.
  5. What future programs are planned to monitor the health of the general population in the Oenpelli region.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, but Dr Hancock in the same report went on to say This cannot be statistically proven ‘.

In the 12 years from 196S to 1976, four deaths from leukaemia occurred in the population centred around Oenpelli (approximately SOO) in a total of 19 deaths from the same cause registered in the population of the Northern Territory (approximately 100,000). The total figures are unlikely to represent the actual incidence of leukaemia in the Territory as non-permanent residents with diseases such as leukaemia, often return to their home States.

As to carcinoma of the lung, one death occurred in an Oenpelli resident out of 1 14 deaths attributed to carcinoma of the lung registered in the Northern Territory over the same period.

  1. and (3) Health services to the Oenpelli population, including regular medical visits, have been maintained since October 1973. From then to the present time one death due to leukaemia has occurred and is included in the four referred to in ( 1 ).
  2. Deaths from leukaemia and other neoplasms of the haemopoietic system in Australia as a whole varied from 12 to 14 per 100,000 for the years 1965 to 1976 inclusive. The total number of deaths recorded in the Northern Territory from this cause is therefore low and indicates incomplete reporting and rapid population turnover. The four deaths from leukaemia reported from the Oenpelli region in the same period is not statistically significant, as to compile a mortality rate from such a small number of cases and a small population over a 12 year period is quite misleading.
  3. General health services will continue to develop as they have in recent years. A study to establish baseline social and health data is being planned in co-operation with the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. Specific monitoring of radiation and any possible effects will be mandatory with any commencement of uranium mining and back-ground sampling has already been undertaken by the Australian Radiation Laboratory.

Nabarlek Uranium Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Question No. 1872)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did officers of his Depanment assist in the planning of meetings with the Northern Land Council, local Aboriginal people and Queensland Mines Ltd in order to explain the Nabarlek Uranium Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement to local Aboriginal people.
  2. How many meetings were held, where, and on what dates.
  3. Did officers of the Depanment attend any of these meetings, if so, which meetings did they attend.
  4. Which agencies or groups were represented at each of these meetings.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. Officers of my Depanment have not assisted in the planning of any meetings with the Northern Land Council local Aboriginal people and Queensland Mines Ltd in order to explain the Nabarlek project draft environmental impact statement. Officers have met with the Chairman and staff of the NLC to discuss submissions lodged by the Council on the draft environmental impact statement. The mining company was not involved in this meeting.
  2. See(l).
  3. No.
  4. See(l)and(3).

Jabiluka Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Question No. 1873)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Did officers of his Depanment assist in the planning of meetings with the Northern Land Council, local Aboriginal people and Pancontinental Mining Company in order to explain the Jabiluka Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement to local Aboriginal people.
  2. How many meetings were held, where and on what dates.
  3. Did officers of the Depanment attend any of these meetings, if so, which meetings did they attend.
  4. Which agencies or groups were represented at each of these meetings.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. Officers of my Department have not assisted in the planning of any meetings with the Northern Land Council, local Aboriginal people and Pancontinental Mining Company in order to explain the Jabiluka draft environmental impact statement. Officers have met with the Chairman and staff of the NLC to discuss submissions lodged by the Council on the draft environmental impact statements. The mining company was not involved in this meeting.
  2. See(l).
  3. No.
  4. See(l)and(3).

Solar Energy Technology (Question No. 1874)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 23 August:

  1. Have any studies been conducted by, or on behalf of, his Department of the economic benefits and employment prospects of a solar energy technology industry in Australia.
  2. If so, when were these studies conducted, and by whom.
  3. 3 ) Have reports of these studies been published.
  4. What were the findings of these studies.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1) to (4) Primary responsibility for energy policy, including solar energy, rests with the Minister for National Development and I note that a similar question has been directed to that Minister.

No studies of the type described have been carried out by, or on behalf of, my Department but I am aware of the general environmental benefits of appropriate use of renewable energy resources.

Energy Conservation (Question No. 1875)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 23 August:

  1. Have any studies been conducted by, or on behalf of, his Department of the economic benefits and employment prospects of an energy conservation program in Australia.
  2. If so, when were these studies conducted, and by whom.
  3. Have reports of these studies been published.
  4. What were the findings of these studies.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. I ) to (4) Primary responsibility for energy policy, including energy conservation, rests with the Minister for National Development and I note that a similar question has been directed to that Minister.

No studies of the type described have been carried out by, or on behalf of my Department.

Uranium: El Sherana Mining Tenements (Question No. 1896)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Utah Mining Company acquired rights to the El Sherana uranium mine in the Alligator Rivers Region of the Northern Territory.
  2. Does the company now propose to commence diamond drilling.
  3. If so, is the location of the proposed drilling within the Gimbat pastoral lease, the significance of which to the Kakadu National Park has been admitted by the Government.
  4. Has the Northern Territory Government requested that it be given control of the Gimbat and neighbouring Goodparla pastoral leases.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Utah Development Corporation acquired an interest in the El Sherana mining tenements in 1971. Pan of this interest has been recently transferred to Utah Mining (Australia) Ltd.
  2. The Northern Territory rnining legislation does not require leaseholders to notify drilling intentions on mining tenements. No information has been received by the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy concerning drilling operations.
  3. The El Sherana mining tenements are located within the Gimbat pastoral lease.
  4. The Northern Territory Government has written to the Government requesting a review of the acquisition of the fee-simple interest in land which includes the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases.

Workshop on Environmental Studies in the Alligator Rivers Region (Question No. 1898)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government refused a request by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Northern Territory Environment Council to send a representative to the Workshop on Environmental Studies in the Alligator Rivers Region being conducted by the Supervising Scientist this week.
  2. Have mining company representatives been invited to attend the seminar.
  3. Will the Alligator Rivers environmental monitoring program be conducted so as to prevent scrutiny by public environmental organisations.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The purpose of the Workshop was to discuss in detail the component parts of a comprehensive research program aimed at providing the environmental baseline data necessary for defining practical and effective monitoring programs in the Region. The participants represented a range of relevant disciplines and included those who are working or had worked in the area, and those who had submitted or had indicated an interest in submitting, proposals for research and monitoring programs in the Region. Participants were invited because of their expertise in specific disciplines. Because of this the Supervising Scientist did not feel it appropriate to invite representatives from the Australian Conservation Foundation or from the Northern Territory Environment Council.
  2. As the mining companies are responsible for a number of important research and monitoring programs, their environmental officers were present at the Workshop.
  3. No. The Supervising Scientist has a duty to report on his activities to the Minister and these reports are to be tabled in the Parliament. Copies are also to be sent to the appropriate Minister of the Northern Territory Government, following tabling.

Departmental Contacts with Non-English speaking Persons (Question No. 1905)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

Which of the positions in his Department have been identified as those where at least 10 per cent of the occupant’s time is spent dealing with clients in a language other than English.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

A recent survey within the Department indicates that there are approximately 360 positions (both in Australia and overseas) at counters, in interview situations or in the interpreting/translating areas, where the party being faced prefers to speak in a language other than English. These dialogues are often conducted through an interpreter.

Iwasaki Tourist Development, Yeppoon (Question No. 1908)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the considerable public reaction against the proposed Iwasaki tourist development at Farnborough near Yeppoon, Queensland.
  2. Was a final environmental impact statement prepared On the Iwasaki development; if so, when will he make it avilable to the public.
  3. If there was a final environmental impact statement, did it differ from the draft statement; if so, in what particulars did it differ.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 have been made aware of public comments made both for and against the tourist resort proposal.
  2. and (3) Yes; the finalisation was affected by an addendum which has been distributed to my Department and to all individuals and public and private agencies who made comments on the draft EIS. Other interested persons may obtain a copy of the addendum from the Company.

The addendum examines and provides responses to the public comment made on the draft EIS. Among the major issues re-examined in response to public comment in the addendum are:

Physical Environment issues, including beach protection, pest control and wetland preservation, engineering issues, including water supply, drainage and sewage treatment, socio-economic issues, including employment and social considerations.

Commonwealth Funding of Voluntary Agencies assisting Refugees (Question No. 1938)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs:

  1. How many voluntary agencies assisting refugees currently receive funding from the Commonwealth Government.
  2. What are the names and addresses of these agencies.
  3. What sum did each agency receive in (a) 1975-76, (b) 1976-77 and (c) 1977-78.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Five voluntary agencies currently receive financial assistance from my Department for providing assistance specifically for refugees. The assistance is provided under a scheme introduced during the financial year 1977-78 by which agencies may claim reimbursement for the cost of material assistance (clothing and personal requisites) provided.
  2. and (3) The agencies involved and amounts paid are indicated below:

    1. 1975-76 Nil; (b) 1976-77 Nil. (c)-

In addition, the Government gave the national body of the Indo-Chinese Refugee Association an Impetus Grant of $5,000 in the fiscal year 1977-78. The Perth Asian Community Centre received an Impetus Grant of $3,000 to assist a program aimed at the settlement of Asians in Australia.

The Government has just awarded the Indo-Chinese Refugee Association (New South Wales) a grant-in-aid to employ a social welfare worker over the triennium 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81. The total value of the grant over three years will be in the vicinity of $45,000. Funding will commence when the agency appoints a suitable person.

Several voluntary organisations funded under the grant- in-aid scheme are active in providing settlement assistance to refugees as part of their program of assisting migrants generally.

Post-arrival Programs and Services for Migrants (Question No. 1939)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. On 30 May 1978, did the Prime Minister accept the recommendations of the Galbally review of post-arrival programs and services for migrants and the financial commitments they entailed.
  2. Did the review budget for an expenditure of $7. 88m in 1978-79; if so, why was only $6. 55m allocated specifically for that purpose in the 1978-79 Budget.
  3. How was this saving of $ 1.33m achieved.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. The Prime Minister announced on 30 May 1978 that the Government accepts the Galbally Report proposals and the financial commitments which they entail over a three year period. He pointed out that there would be opportunity for adjustment through regular close monitoring of external circumstances such as responses of migrant groups.
  2. and (3) The additional financial allocation required to implement the proposals for Year 1 was estimated by the Galbally Review at $7.88m. The $6.5m provided for in the Budget for 1978-79 does not include the following items which the Review Group had included in their estimates:

    1. expenditures which will be related to the 1979 school year, pan of which will be funded in the 1979-80 financial year,
    2. costs where sequential implementation of recommendations is involved and expenditure is not expected to be incurred until next financial year,
    3. costs of additional Public Service staff which will be met from normal departmental appropriations for salaries and allowances; and
    4. costs of ethnic health workers, the employment of whom under the Community Health Program has to be worked out in consultations with the States.

Task Group on Youth Affairs (Question No. 1947)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. When was the Task Group on Youth Affairs established.
  2. What are its (a) terms of reference and (b) priority tasks.
  3. On how many occasions has the Task Group met since it was established.
  4. Which Departments are represented on the Task Group and what is the level of representation in each case.
  5. What conclusions has the task force reached concerning youth unemployment and solutions to the problem.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1) It was established on 22 February 1977 and first met on 2 June 1977.
  2. (a) and (b) The Task Group is a co-ordinating mechanism which exists to ensure proper inter-departmental consultations in the development of new policy proposals or proposed changes to existing programs which bear significantly on Government service to youth. As such it has no specific program responsibilities.
  3. Five.
  4. Departments represented on the Task Group are Environment, Housing and Community Development (Chair), Aboriginal Affairs, Education, Employment and Industrial Relations, Finance, Health, Home Affairs (Office of Women’s Affairs), Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet and Social Security. In each case representation is at senior third and/or second division level.
  5. The Task Group has commissioned various studies of aspects of youth unemployment and the school to work transition process, with particular reference to the problems of special groups of young people in the labour market and to the question of the social impact of unemployment. The studies, which are still proceeding, are being undertaken in conjunction with appropriate Departments and agencies and will take note of relevant research produced by committees of inquiry, academic institutions et cetera.

Design Rules for Access by Disabled Persons to new Buildings (Question No. 1961)

Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

  1. What steps does his Department take to comply with the Australian Standard Design Code 1428-1977 design rules for access by the disabled in new buildings.
  2. Is consideration of these rules mandatory in designing new buildings.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Construction requires that all of its designers understand the Australian Standard Design Code 1428-1977 and incorporate the design rules for access by the disabled in the design of all new government buildings, as appropriate. Project designs are reviewed by Departmental Committees and their reviews include the monitoring of this aspect.
  2. Consideration of the rules in the design of new government buildings is mandatory throughout the department.

Proserpine Airport (Question No. 1965)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Further to his answer to Question No. 376 (Hansard, 25 May 1978, page 2890) what funds have been provided in the 1978-79 Budget for works associated with Proserpine Airport, Queensland.
  2. 2 ) What is the nature of these works.
  3. Were funds provided in the 1977-78 Budget for the airport fully spent.
  4. If not, (a) what was the reason, (b) were the excess funds carried over into 1978-79, and (c) what sum was involved.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) An amount of $324,000 has been included in the 1978-79 Budget for works associated with Proserpine Airport-

    1. $194,000 in Division 655/3/08-Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan- Developmental Grants
    2. $130,000 in Division 957/ 1/02 -Capital Works and Services- Airport and Airways services.
  2. These funds are provided for-

    1. payment of a Development Gram under the ALOP to meet the costs of the transportation from Port Hedland and the erection of an air traffic control tower at Proserpine
    2. b ) the replacement of airways facilities equipment taken from store and installed at Proserpine last financial year.
  3. The $100,000 provided in the 1977-78 Budget for Proserpine Airport were fully expended on the provision of airways facilities to meet basic requirements for jet operations.
  4. Not applicable.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1670 (Question No. 2064)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1 670.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided in the Hansard of 19 September 1978 (page 1174).

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1671 (Question No. 2065)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1671.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided in the Hansard of 19 September 1978 (page 1174).

Home Savings Grants (Question No. 2089)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. Since the Home Saving Grant Scheme was reintroduced in 1976 how many applications (a) have been made for the grant and (b) were accepted.
  2. Of the successful applicants what proportion was gained by (a) single males, (b) single females, (c) married couples and (d) unmarried couples.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

The Homes Savings Grant Act 1976 applies in respect of persons acquiring their first homes on and from 1 January 1977.

During the period 1 January 1977 to 14 September 1978-

87,3 19 applications were received

b) 72,099 applications were approved

2,058 applications were not eligible

13,162 applications were on hand at 14 September 1978

Statistics on the matital status of applicants are available up to 30 June 1978-

5,497 were from sole male applicants

3,553 were from sole female applicants

41,362 were from married couples

6,744 were from engaged couples

1,081 were from 2 or more applicants, not in the above categories.

Co-ordinative and Consultative Arrangements with the States (Question No. 2090)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. What co-ordinative and consultative arrangements presently exist between his Department and each of the State Governments.
  2. When were each of these arrangements established.
  3. If any of these arrangements are of a joint committee structure who are the members of the committees and how often do the committees meet.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

I note that the honourable member has directed the same question to all Ministers.

There are a number of Standing Councils and Committees in existence that provide co-ordinative and consultative arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth Directory lists a number of these along with details of establishment, composition and role. Information on Ministerial Councils was provided by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs on 8 June 1978 to the Hon. E. G. Whitlam in answer to the Question No. 1 14, upon notice, and I refer the honourable member to that source also.

Vitamins (Question No. 2119)

Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report describing orthomolecular megavitamin treatment on page 12 of the Sydney Sun on 2 1 August 1 978. -
  2. If so, does the writer claim that a psychiatrist monitoring blood levels of vitamins A, B group, and C has found enormous doses are required to maintain normal levels in some patients, especially with chronic psychosis.
  3. Has this treatment achieved a dramatic drop in average stay from between 6 and 12 months to between 3 and 5 weeks with a tenfold increase in bed turnover in a 60-bed chronic psychiatric ward.
  4. What action has been taken by the National Health and Medical Research Council or other authorities or professional organisations, to confirm these claims and to facilitate the blood vitamin assays involved.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. It is my understanding that psychotropic and other drugs were also administered to the patients concerned, that some of the patients were transferred to other institutions and not discharged as reported, and that the study was performed without a comparison group receiving vitamin treatment. Although benefit was observed in some patients it is not possible to conclude from a study of this design to which component or components of the treatment the benefit was due.
  3. The National Health and Medical Research Council has not received any application for assistance with scientific research into this question.

Home Savings Grants (Question No. 2124)

Mr Stewart:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Treasurer say in his Budget Speech that as a result of the Budget, waiting periods for Home Savings Grants would increase.
  2. Did the Budget Statements indicate waiting periods of up to 9 months.
  3. Will savings accumulated during the waiting period be taken into account in determining the amount of the grant.
  4. Is the effective date for determination of the amount of the grant the date of: (a) contracting for purchase, (b) application for the grant, (c) consideration for eligibility or (d) some other date.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the Treasurer’s Budget Speech and accompanying statements.
  2. No.
  3. The effective date for determination is the prescribed date as defined in the Homes Savings Grant Act 1976. In general, this is the date the applicant contracted for the purchase or construction of the home.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Inquiry (Question No. 2131)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did he appoint a committee of inquiry into anomalies in the Defence Forces Retirements Benefits scheme relating to persons who retired prior to 1972.
  2. If so, was Mr Bonnett, a former Member of Parliament, appointed to that committee.
  3. Did Mr Bonnett report on serious disadvantages which exist in the scheme in a report presented to him.
  4. If so, has the Government considered this report.
  5. Will action be taken to correct these anomalies.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) In August 1 976 I agreed to a proposal by Mr Bonnett, a former member of this House, that he conduct a personal inquiry into possible anomalies in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act of 1948-73 relating to persons who retired prior to 1 October 1 972. ( 3 ), (4) and (5 ) Mr Bonnett ‘s report raises a series of complex technical and policy issues arising from fundamental changes which have been made to the scheme and to the contributions and benefits arrangements since its commencement in 1948.

The report is under consideration. An announcement of the Government’s intentions will be made when the present inquiries are completed.

Office of the Supervising Scientist (Question No. 2 152)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the present staffing level of the Office of the Supervising Scientist.
  2. How many research scientists are presently on the staff of the Office of the Supervising Scientists.
  3. What is the 30 June 1979 staff ceiling target for the same Office.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. The Office of the Supervising Scientist presently has five (5) staff members, together with three (3) officers on loan from other departments.
  2. None of the staff is presently employed within the Public Service research scientists employment category. To date the environmental research activities of the Supervising Scientist have been undertaken by research consultants. These consultants are in the main employed by tertiary education bodies and other government instrumentalities.
  3. The Office of the Supervising Scientist has an approved staff ceiling of 20 for the 30 June 1 979.

Environmental Monitoring of the Alligator Rivers Region (Question No. 2153)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

  1. Has the Government adopted the recommendation concerning environmental monitoring of the Alligator Rivers Region contained on page 293 of the Second Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, that a group of experts from the relevant scientific fields specified in Chapter S be assembled as soon as possible to advise on the selection of those biological, chemical and physical observations likely to be of most practical value to the monitoring program.
  2. If such a group of experts has been assembled, what are the names, qualifications and fields of expertise of the members.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The names, qualifications and fields of expertise of the members of the Group of Experts as presently constituted are as follows:

Mr C. S. Christian, C.M.G., B.Sc. Agr., M.S., Hon. D. Sc. Agr. Qld, F.T.S., F.A.I.A.S. Field of Expertise: Ecology.

Mr D. R. Davy, B. Sc. (Hons), Dip. Env. Stud. Field of Expertise: Water Quality, Health Physics.

Dr B. T. Hart, B. Se (Hons), Ph.D., Dip. APR Chem. Dip. Chem. Eng., T.T.T.C., F.R.A.C.1. Field of Expertise: Water Quality, Aquatic Chemistry.

Mr R. E. Morrison, B.E., M.E., Dip. Eng. Hyd., Dip. C. Eng., M.I.E. Aust., M.A.W.W.A. Field of Expertise: Hydrology.

Dr J. F. Skidmore, B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D, F.Z.S., M.I. Biol. Field of Expertise: Bioassay, Fish Toxicity.

Dr P. A. Tyler, B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D. Field of Expertise: Botany.

Professor W. D. Williams, D.Sc. Field of Expertise: Zoology.

Professor P. C. Young, B. Tech., M.Sc, M.A., Ph.D., C. Eng., Whitworth Fellow, M.R.Ae.S., M.I.E.E., M.I. Mech. E. Field of Expertise: Hydrology, Water Quality Modelling Studies.

Water Quality Modelling, Alligator Rivers Region (Question No. 2154)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 20 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been achieved in the development of a comprehensive meteorological, hydrological water quality model of the Magela system in the Alligator Rivers Region.
  2. Would the model as presently constituted permit accurate prediction of the conditions in which contaminants released at the Ranger site will be flushed beyond the northern end of the Magela plains.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. Consultants working for the Supervising Scientist together with officers of the Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works, Water and Sewerage Division, are currently developing such a model. Considerable progress has already been made in relation to meteorological and hydrological aspects of the model. It is now possible to make reasonable predictions of the moovement of water throughout the Magela Creek system. Work has commenced on water quality modelling. Use will be made of water quality data already available, together with results of dye and radioisotope studies that have been carried out since early 1 976.
  2. No. Further work, involving the collection of new flow and water quality data, particularly in the -Magela floodplain, and the subsequent refinement of the existing model, is required before it will be available as a water management tool at the Ranger site.

Food Additives (Question No. 2156)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his answer to question No. 49 1 (4) (Hansard, 1 June 1976, page 2781), do the 230 food additives that he claims are approved for use in Australia include food flavours; if not, how many food flavours are licensed for use in Australia and has any evaluation been made of them.
  2. ) Have all the additives approved for use been individually evaluated in Australia.
  3. Is it a fact that Australia allows higher concentrations of some additives such as food colours than other countries and higher than is recommended by the World Health Organisation.
  4. What additives in particular are placed under continual review and where can the public acquire information on these tests.
  5. Are all additives examined for pharmacological activity in Australia; if not, why not.
  6. Is the industry or the Government responsible for safety testing off additives
  7. What are the names of the members comprising the Food Standards Committee and the Nutrition Committee, and by which companies or Government Departments are they employed.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The 230 food additives referred to in the answer to question No. 491 (4) (Hansard, 1 June 1976, page 278 1 ) include all food additives approved for use in Australia except food flavours.

Food flavours are not subject to licensing for use in Australia. Food flavours have not been evaluated in Australia.

  1. Yes. Before approval for the use of a food additive in Australia is given, it must be fully evaluated on both technological and toxicological grounds by the Food Science and Technology Subcommittee (FST) of the National Health and Medical Research Council (N.H and M.R.C.) by examination of all available scientific data both here and from overseas.
  2. Yes. In some instances Australia permits higher levels of certain additives than other countries but the converse is also true.

The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives evaluates food additives on the basis of all available toxicological data and where appropriate establishes ‘acceptable daily intakes’ and chemical specifications for the additives only.

A country when setting maximum permitted levels for additives in particular foods must take account of the dietary intakes within the community to ensure that the acceptable daily intake is not exceeded. Hence differing dietary patterns in different countries may lead to different levels being set.

Comparing the situation as regards food colours here to that in the UK, USA and Canada- probably the most advanced countries in this respect- it is seen that:

  1. in the UK and the USA these additives are in general used in food in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice and no levels have been set;
  2. Australia and Canada have maximum permitted levels. For some of the permitted colours the Canadian level is higher and vice versa. However, the levels set in these two countries are essentially of the same order.

    1. All permitted food additives are subject to continuing review by the FST in the light of changing conditions and new scientific information. Any changes made to the approval of an existing food additive are published in the Session Reports of the N.H. and M.R.C. These are available through the Australian Government Publishing Service outlets.
    2. 5) No. Facilities do not exist in Australia for the extensive testing required.

However full details of pharmacological and toxicological investigations carried out according to the general terms of reference given in World Health Organisation Technical Report Series, No. 144 ‘Procedures for the testing of intentional food additives to establish their safety for use’ are required by the FST before the evaluation of a food additive is commenced.

Such information is obtained through the scientific literature and from international expert bodies such as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.

  1. The initial toxicological testing of food additives is generally carried out jointly by Government and industry, but not in Australia. Such tests must conform with strict controls in order to be acceptable.

Once approved, all food additives must comply with Specifications of Identity and Purity as recommended by the N.H and M.R.C.

  1. The membership of the present Food Standards Committee is as follows:

Professor R. A. Edwards, School of Food Technology, University of New South Wales (Chairman)

Dr R. H. C. Fleming, Director, Food and Nutrition Section, Commonwealth Department of Health (Deputy Chairman and Convener)

Mr D. R. Barnes, Assistant Secretary, Department of Primary Industry, Canberra.

Dr C. Hudson, Council of Australian Food Technology Associations (Davis Gelatine (Aust. ) Pty Ltd).

Mr R. C. Norris, Australian Government Analyst, Department of Science, Canberra.

Mr G. L. Robinson, Chief Health Surveyor, South Australian Health Commission.

Mr M. V. Tracey, Chief, Division of Food Research, CSIRO, North Ryde, NSW.

Mr M. P. Jackson, Principal Chemist, Commonwealth Department of Health (Secretary).

The membership of the present Nutrition Committee is as follows:

Professor R. H. Thorp, representative on Council of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (Chairman).

Dr M. Gracey, Head, Gastroenterological Research Unit, Princess Margaret Children’s Medical Research Foundation, Subiaco, Western Australia.

Dr B. S. Hetzel, Chief, Division of Human Nutrition (CSIRO) South Australia.

Professor C. Kidson, Professor of Biochemistry, University of Queensland.

Miss C. N. Turner, Chief Research Dietitian, Cancer Institute, Melbourne.

Miss M. W. Corden, Principal Nutritionist, Commonwealth Department of Health (Convener and Secretary).

Milk Prices (Question No. 2167)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry upon notice, on 2 1 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What are the present (a) farm gate costs, (b) transport charges, (c) agents charges, (d) processing charges, (e) delivery costs and (f) retail price for milk used for human consumption in each of the State capital cities and Canberra.
  2. In each of these cities, when were these prices set and are there any current reviews of their city milk price structure.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The details requested are set out in the table hereunder and are based on information provided by milk authorities in the States and the ACT:
  1. The price structure in (1) above has been effective from:

Sydney-8 September 1 978

Melbourne- 1 October 1978

Brisbane- 13 July 1978

Adelaide-2 7 August 1978

Perth- 1 March 1978

Hobart-1 July 1978

Canberra- 14 July 1978.

Most milk authorities in the States and the ACT keep the price of market milk under continuing review. Changes are made from time to time.

Nuclear Power in the Philippines (Question No. 2283)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978.

  1. 1 ) Did the Ambassador-at-Large for Nuclear Affairs submit a report to the Government concerning safety aspects of the nuclear power plant which is under construction in the Bataan province of the Philippines.
  2. If so, will he table the report.
  3. ) Can he say if there has been opposition to construction of the nuclear power plant by citizens of the Bataan province; if so, has he taken any steps to investigate whether human rights violations have occurred during the planning or construction of the plant.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to (1).
  3. I am advised that a group called the Movement of Concerned Citizens of Bataan has expressed opposition to construction of the nuclear power plant. As regards human rights, the Government’s views are clearly on the public record both within Australia and internationally. The Government necessarily has to use its judgement, however, on the need to avoid actions which might lead to accusations of undue interference in the affairs of another country.

Civil Marriage Celebrants, Electoral Division of Bowman (Question No. 2351)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which persons were registered as civil marriage celebrants in the Electoral Division of Bowman as at 30 June 1978.
  2. How many civil marriages were registered by each of these celebrants during (a) 1976 (b) 1977 and (c) the period 1 January to 30 June 1978.
  3. What is the minimum fee payable to a civil marriage celebrant for each service performed.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The following table sets out the names of private persons authorised as civil marriage celebrants in the Electoral Division of Bowman, together with the number of marriages recorded as having been solemnised by each celebrant during (a) 1976, (b) 1977 and (c) the period 1 January to 30 June 1978. The figures are based on returns supplied by the celebrants themselves. Figures for individual celebrants are not readily available from Registrars ‘ records.
  1. $15.00.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1665 (Question No. 2364)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 28 September 1978

Is the Parliament entitled to a better reply than the one he gave to question No. 1665.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I consider that the answer I gave to question No. 1 665 was entirely appropriate.

Wool Shipments to Europe (Question No. 2378)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry-

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Australian Wool Corporation will ship 1,000 containers of wool to Europe on the ABC container line vessel Helen.
  2. Is the shipment of wool in accordance with any agreement which the Corporation has with the Australia to Europe Conference; if so, what are the specific details of this agreement.
  3. Is it also a fact that the Australian Wool Corporation did not consult formally with the representatives in Australia of the Australia to Europe Conference about the proposed shipment; if not, on what dates did the consultation occur.
  4. If no consultation occurred, what were the reasons.
  5. Was the Australian Government informed about the proposed shipments; if so, on what dates.
  6. Did the Commonwealth Government grant specific approval for the shipments; if so, when was approval (a) sought, and (b) granted.
  7. Is the Australian National Line a member of the Australia to Europe Conference; if so, would space have been available on ANL vessels for this cargo.
  8. What is (a) the total quantity of wool to be shipped and (b) the estimated loss of revenue to the member lines of the Australia to Europe Conference as a consequence of the shipment
  9. Does the Corporation propose to undertake any more shipments of this nature; if so, when.
  10. 10) Is the Australia to Europe Conference or any other line given the opportunity to quote for the shipment of wool owned by the Corporation; if so, what lines were approached to carry the wool now to be carried on ABC lines.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Australian Wool Corporation plans to ship 1,200 twenty-foot equivalent units on ABC line ships.
  2. Yes. The Australian Wool Corporation has advised me that the details are commercially confidential.
  3. Yes.
  4. The Corporation did not consider there was an obligation for further consultations on such a trial arrangement.
  5. 5 ) The Minister for Primary Industry was informed on 1 9 September 1978.
  6. No.
  7. ANL is a member of the Australia/Europe Conference. ANL has advised that space would have been available for at least 1,200 containers in the next four scheduled sailings of its vessels in the three month period from early November to early February.
  8. (a) The amount of wool which under trial conditions will fit into a maximum of 1,200 twenty-foot equivalent units.

    1. A calculation of the loss of revenue would be hypothetical because the wool may not have been shipped in the absence of a trial.
  9. Any further shipments of this nature will depend upon a detailed assessment of the outcome of the trial.
  10. 10) A number of shipping lines, including some members of the Australia/Europe Conference were approached to carry wool on a trial basis under different modes of assembling and packing the wool. The names of the lines approached are commercially confidential.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1151)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these Committees.
Mr Staley:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 have not established or continued any advisory or consultative committees which include members of parliament.

Non-official Post Offices: Display of Party Political Material (Question No. 1182)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Under the terms of operation of unofficial post offices, is an unofficial post office permitted to display party political propaganda with the precincts of that unofficial post office.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

No. Non-official post offices are not permitted to display party political material within its precincts. Often, nonofficial post offices, however, are conducted in conjunction with another business and not in self-contained premises. In many cases, the post office and private business areas are in very close proximity and it is often difficult to define clearly the boundary between the two areas.

Australia Post could issue directions only in relation to areas used for the provision of postal services. In these areas, the display of notices of a political nature would not be condoned by Australia Post. Should any such case come to notice, the non-official postmaster concerned would be requested to remove the notice.

Australia Post has no authority to control the type of material displayed in the private business section of such premises.

Post Offices and Posting Boxes: Closure and Re-siting (Question No. 1223)

Mr Moore:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is there a policy of rationalisation of posting facilities by Australia Post.
  2. On what basis are decisions to close post boxes and post offices taken.
  3. What weight is placed on the needs of the elderly and the infirm in reaching these decisions.
  4. How many (a) post boxes, (b) official post offices and (c) unofficial post offices have been removed or re-sited by Australia Post in (i) the Electoral Division of Ryan and (ii) the Brisbane Statistical Division.

    1. What procedures are available to members of the public to appeal against Australia Post decisions in these matters.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1) It is the policy of Australia Post to review all facilities, including posting facilities, periodically to ensure that available resources are put to the most effective use.
  2. A street posting box in which, on average, less than 30 letters a day are posted and which is located within 800 metres of another posting facility would generally be withdrawn.

In lj urban area, a post office which does not handle sufficient postal work to occupy at least on person full time and which is located within two kilometres of another post office, would generally be closed.

In a rural area, a post office which is used mainly for counter delivery of mail and which handles very little other counter business may be closed if satisfactory alternative mail delivery arrangements can be made.

In any case where the relocation of a facility or its withdrawal is considered, such a decision is made in the light of likely changes in usage and other proposals to introduce or withdraw other similar facilities in the area.

  1. As post offices are no longer involved with Social Security payments, the dependence of the elderly and infirm on post office counter services has been reduced significantly. Even so, the needs of all local residents, including the elderly and infirm, are taken into consideration when decisions are made concerning the relocation or withdrawal of postal facilities.
  2. The numbers of posting boxes, official post offices and non-official post offices removed or re-sited by Australia Post since 1 July 1975 in the Electoral Division of Ryan and the Brisbane Statistical Division are as follows:
  1. In conjunction with the Australian Postal Commission and Australia Post management, I give consideration to any approach made concerning provision of postal facilities. The Commonwealth Ombudsman provides also an avenue of appeal against Australia Post decisions of this nature.

Maternity Leave (Question No. 1282)

Mr Shipton:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science the following question, upon notice, on 26 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What has been the cost of maternity leave in the Department of Science during the years (a) 1976 and (b) 1977 and (c) in the period January 1978 to date?
  2. What was the total hours of leave in respect of these employees?
  3. How many employees have resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in each of the periods?
  4. What sum was paid for maternity leave for the (a) first, ( b) second and (c) third child in each of the periods?
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) 1976-$74,580; (b) 1977- $188,858; (c) 1978-$66,406.
  2. 106,1 11 hours.
  3. (a) 1976-5; (b) 1977-12; (c) 1978-2.
  4. 1976-(a) $72,579; (b) $2,000; (c)Nil. 1977- (a)$188,857;(b)Nil; (c)Nil. 1978- (a) $66,405; (b) Nil; (c) Nil.

Domestic Air Fares, Australia and Overseas (Question No. 1660)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 5 August 1978:

How do economy fares of Australia’s domestic airlines compare with the cheapest domestic air fares charged by the largest carriers in each of the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

A list of the lowest published domestic air fares over representative routes of member countries of the OECD are set out in the table below together with the economy fare for the Melbourne-Sydney route. Whilst the question only specified the economy fare on the latter route there are a number of concessional fares applicable. The details are as follows:

Atomic Energy Projects: Association with Malignant Disease (Question No. 1686)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on15 August 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports of increased incidence of malignant disease in workers and residents in and near nuclear power stations, related statistically to the length of time in the area and proximity to the plants.
  2. What health screening occurs at Lucas Heights, NSW, and other atomic energy projects in Australia.
  3. 3 ) What statistical comparisons are made between malignant disease incidences among workers and ex-workers on these projects and incidences among comparably fit members of the general population in Australia.
  4. What conclusions can be drawn from such comparisons, and what is their statistical significance and validity.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, my Department is aware of these reports.
  2. A full and detailed occupational health service is provided for all employees of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights. An investigation led by Professor David Ferguson of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, University of Sydney into the health of employees at Lucas Heights has been undertaken and in the preliminary report there was no evidence to show that the health of employees was being affected because of the nature of the industry.
  3. and (4) The assessment of risk associated with exposure to low levels of radiation and the establishment of valid conclusions from statistical comparisons between radiation workers and other comparable groups is difficult because the risk is low. Very large numbers are therefore required in order to reach statistically reliable conclusions. For this reason, a major international study is being set up under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency to collect and collate world-wide data. Australia will be a participant in this study through the Australian Radiation Laboratory, and statistical data from Australian facilities and comparable groups will be included.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: Discharge of Waste (Question No. 1730)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Australian Atomic Energy Commission applied to the New South Wales Water Board for permission to dispose of waste currently discharged into the Woronora River, through the Board’s sewer; if so, what conditions must the Commission comply with before permission is granted.
  2. If there has been no application, what is the reason.
  3. What alternative measures are under consideration to put an end to the disposal of waste discharged from the Commission’s research establishment into the Woronora River.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The Commission is completely satisfied that its present procedures for disposal of liquid effluent to the Woronora River present no hazard to the general public, including residents of the Woronora River township, or to the environment. This discharge is carried out in compliance with the requirements of the appropriate NSW Government authorities.
  3. The Commission is looking for a more economic method of disposal of the effluent, while at the same time maintaining the present high standards of safety. For this purpose the Commission has entered into discussions with the NSW Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board.

Energy Conservation Program (Question No. 1862)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Have any studies been conducted by, or on behalf of, his Department of the economic benefits and employment prospects of an energy conservation program in Australia.
  2. If so, when were these studies conducted, and by whom.
  3. 3 ) Have reports of these studies been published.
  4. What were the findings of these studies.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) Work carried out by my Department has identified some potential economic benefits and prospects for employment which would arise from the implementation of an energy conservation program in Australia. No detailed quantitative studies are yet available, however, for publication.

Aboriginal Affairs, Aurukun (Question No. 1936)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say whether the Queensland Premier on 18 November 1971, when meeting with a representative of the Uniting Church or its then predecessor, stated that his advisers had found it unsatisfactory to allow 3 per cent of mining profits of Aurukun Associates to go to Aboriginals because a mining consortium in practice handles financial statements in such a way that no profit is shown.
  2. Is he also able to say whether Messrs J. van Holland and F. Michel Messud agreed, on 3 March 1972, that the product would be sold at cost to the partners.
  3. Can he state whether the same advice was sent by the auditors of the Aurukun Community Company, Brisbane Chartered Accountants, to the Queensland Minister for Mines on 3 December 197S.
  4. Can he also state whether the Mining Act of Queensland makes provision for compensation to landowners who have no private title to the land.
  5. If not, what steps has he taken to ensure that there would be Aboriginal participation in any such mining activity, with a right to participate in its planning, proceeds, training, employment opportunities and the handling of the alcohol problem.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1),(2)and (3)No

  1. The Queensland Mining Act 1968 (as amended) makes provision for the payment of compensation to the owner or occupier of private land where the owner or occupier suffers damage by reason of the actions of persons lawfully associated with mining under the provision of the Act. It also makes provision for the payment of compensation to the lessee of Crown land or the owner of improvements on that land for damage to improvements on Crown land by mining or associated activity lawfully carried out under the Act.
  2. See reply to question No. 1935.

Organ and Tissue Transplants (Question No. 1954)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What steps have been taken to facilitate organ and tissue transplants on a uniform Australia-wide basis, especially with regard to corneal transplants which are the only means of restoring sight in some 5 per cent of cases world-wide.
  2. What support will be given to the .1979 International Congress in Sydney of Eye Banks and Ophthalmologists sponsored by the Australian International Eye Bank and Research Foundation and which is expected to attract some 8,000 ophthalmologists.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Law Reform Commission’s Report on Human Tissue Transplants, which was tabled in the House on 22 September 1977, made various recommendations for the control of human tissue transplants including corneal transplants. The Commission submitted with its report a draft Bill for an ACT Ordinance to control, amongst other things, the removal of human tissues for transplantation and suggested that the draft Bill may be suitable as a model for uniform State and Territory legislation.

Legislation to give substantial effect to the Commission’s recommendations is currently being prepared for the ACT. It is hoped that the early introduction of this legislation will be followed by the introduction of corresponding legislation in the States.

  1. I have not received any request from the sponsors to support this Congress.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1633 (Question No. 2032)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1633.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The issues raised involve the detailed procedures followed by individual departments including procedures not prescribed by regulation. Accordingly, it has been necessary to consult with a number of other departments and authorities to obtain the necessary detailed information to answer the honourable member’s question. Replies will be provided as soon as possible.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1634 (Question No. 2033)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 634.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1635 (Question No. 2034)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 4 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 635.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1636 (Question No. 2035)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 4 September 1 978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1636.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1637 (Question No. 2036)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 637.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1638 (Question No. 2037)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1638.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1639 (Question No. 2038)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 639.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1640 (Question No. 2039)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 640.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1641 (Question No. 2040)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 4 September 1 978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 64 1 .

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1642 (Question No. 2041)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1642.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1643 (Question No. 2042)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1 643.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1644 (Question No. 2043)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services upon notice on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1644.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1645 (Question No. 2044)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services upon notice on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1645.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Answer to Parliamentary Question 1649 (Question No. 2048)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services upon notice on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 1649.

Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the information provided in answer to Question No. 2032 provided above.

Department of Social Security: Exercise of Discretions (Question No. 2068)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1 674.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

The answer to the question appeared in Hansard on 19 September 1 978. The answer to question No. 1 674 reads as follows:

The guidelines governing the exercise of the Departmental discretions in the administration of the laws governing the functions of the Department of Social Security are presently being reviewed to enable the Department to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of information legislation when it becomes law. Upon the completion of the review and the preparation of documents in a form which enables their release to the public these documents will be available to Members of Parliament.

Department of Social Security: Exercise of Discretions (Question No. 2069)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1675.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

The answer to the question appeared in Hansard on 27 September 1978. The answer to question No. 1675 is as follows:

The guidelines governing the exercise of the Departmental discretions in the administration of the laws governing the functions of the Department of Social Security are presently being reviewed to enable the Department to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information legislation when it becomes law. Upon the completion of the review and the preparation of documents in a form which enables their release to the public these documents will be available to Members of Parliament.

Employment of Public Servants and Defence Personnel after Hours and during Leave Periods (Question No. 2132)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

What restrictions apply to employment after hours and during leave periods for (a) members of the armed forces and ( b ) other personnel employed by his Depanment.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Service regulations allow Service personnel to undertake pan time employment in off-duty hours or during leave periods as Service members are considered to have the same rights as other citizens to seek supplementary employment. However, the following conditions are imposed: permission must be obtained from a member’s commanding officer; the work must not interfere with Service duties, impair efficiency or bring the Service into disrepute; a service member must not replace a civilian who is on strike or undertake work which would interfere with the full time employment of other workers; and the Service will not accept responsibility for medical expenses or compensation resulting from outside employment.
  2. The restrictions that apply to public servants employed in the Depanment are laid down in Section 9 1 of the Public Service Act 1922. In short, outside employment is not permitted without the express permission of a delegate of the Public Service Board.

RAAF: Redress of Grievance (Question No. 2181)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did B. T. Grade, D.F.M.. formerly a Sergeant in the RAAF, and whose services were dispensed with as from 1 1 August 1978, make application for compassionate transfer to the Sydney area.
  2. If so, was the application refused and what was the reason for the refusal.
  3. Did the Defence Force Ombudsman, Mr D. O. Hay, CB E., advise Sergeant Grade on 18 November that such a request, i.e. for compassionate transfer, would receive prompt and sympathetic consideration.
  4. Did Sergeant Grade’s application receive prompt and sympathetic attention.
  5. Did Sergeant Grade submit an application for redress of grievance and ask for back-dated promotion to the rank of Flight Sergeant.
  6. Was Sergeant Grade directed by the Chief of the Air Staff to desist with his complaints and accept the finding of independent arbitration.
  7. Was his last application for redress of grievance subject to an independent investigation and/or arbitration; if so, (a) who carried out the investigation, (b) was Sergeant Grade called as a witness on his own behalf and (c) was he permitted to call evidence or to have representation; if not, why not.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The application was refused on the grounds that Sergeant Grade had not provided sufficient evidence or grounds which would have enabled his application to be classed as compassionate. His domestic circumstances at the time, which were cited as the reason for needing a compassionate transfer to Sydney, were largely of his own making and, though unfortunate, did not compel his posting to the Sydney area and the enforced move of a contemporary to create a vacancy.
  3. , (4), (5) and (6) Yes.
  4. The independent arbitration to which the Chief of the Air Staff referred in his direction to Sergeant Gracie alluded to the results of an inquiry into Sergeant Grade’s case by the Defence Force Ombudsman.

An application for redress of grievance is a formal complaint submitted through Service channels and reviewed, in turn, by senior staff at all levels of command. Sergeant Grade’s last application was so handled, and was personally considered at all levels of command up to and including the Chief of the Air Staff.

Members submitting such applications are encouraged to make full and detailed statements in support of their application, and to provide all available evidence to support their case. Members may also ask for the services of an officer to assist them in the preparation and presentation of their case. They may also be called upon, if deemed advisable by Service authorities, to personally elaborate or explain certain aspects of their case.

In Sergeant Grade’s case he was personally interviewed by his superior officer and given the opportunity to elaborate on his case; this he did. He was aware of his rights to seek support in preparing his case, but declined to avail himself of this assistance.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 2326)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on September 1978:

  1. What sum has been returned to the Armed Services from turnover and profits made by the Australian Services Canteens Organisation since its establishment in 1 959.
  2. What are the benefits, funds and concessions which the Government has been able to make available to servicemen from this sum.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Since 19S9 ASCO has returned approximately $ 10.00m from profits to the Army, the Air Force and the Australian Force in Vietnam. The Navy has not participated in the distribution because it operates its own canteen service.
  2. The money has not been paid into Government revenue. It has been allotted to the Army and the Air Force for use in their welfare and amenities programs. These programs are administered through funds such as the Army Central Amenities Fund and the RAAF Welfare Trust Fund.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 2327)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many reports on, or investigations into, the Australian Services Canteens Organisation have been made in the last S years.
  2. Have any reports or investigations recommended that ASCO be closed.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Four.
  2. No.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 2328)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. What are the alternatives to the Australian Services Canteens Organisation.
  2. Which alternative is preferable.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Alternatives to the Australian Services Canteens Organisation are canteen systems that are more closely aligned to the basic and essential needs of the Defence Force in present day socio-economic circumstances.
  2. This alternative is preferred and Services proposals for such systems are presently under examination.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 2329)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

What is the profit made by the Queensland division of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The total profit on ASCO trading in Queensland up to year ended 30 September 1977 was $ 1.683m.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 2330)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What is the date on or after which members of the staff of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation will be retrenched.
  2. Has he conducted discussions with any Departments or with the Public Service Board regarding the relocation of members of ASCO staff.
  3. What guarantee can he give to each ASCO member for re-employment within the Public Service.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No retrenchment program has yet been approved.
  2. The Department of Defence has been in close consultation with the Public Service Board and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations.
  3. 3 ) AU practicable assistance in finding other employment will be given to staff who may become redundant.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 2334)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) When will he make a detailed statement on proposals for the future development of canteen services to replace the Australian Services Canteens Organisation.
  2. Will the Organistion be compensated for the loss of employment caused by this policy decision.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Proposals for canteen services to replace the Australian Services Canteens Organisation are presently under examination and a statement on decisions reached will be made as soon as practicable.
  2. The redundancy in Australian Government employment conditions will apply to ASCO staff who become redundant.

Equal Pay for Servicewomen (Question No. 2336)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the reason for the continuing delay in the payment to servicewomen of equal pay granted some time ago.
  2. Is this delay caused by problems related to the computer capacity of his Department.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The delay in the payment of revised salaries following this Government’s decision to grant equal pay to women in the Defence Force stems from the need to provide legal authority for the payments.

The drafting of the relevant Statutory Rules is a complex matter. It has been given a high priority by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. However, the equal pay task has to compete with the priorities of other Departments.

Services Pay Rates (Question No. 2337)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What ranks and classifications in the (a) Army, (b) Navy an (c) Air Force have been recommended for reductions in pay rates in the latest review.
  2. 2 ) What is the level of the reduction in each grade.
  3. Has the Government decided to accept these recommendations.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Ranks and classifications in the Defence Force recommended for reduction in pay rates by the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay presided over by Mr Justice Coldham, a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are set out in the following table:
  1. Yes, with effect from the date of gazettal of the necessary regulation changes. However, the Government has also accepted a further recommendation by the Committee concerning special non-reduction provisions. Categories downgraded are to remain on their present salary levels until such time as National Wage increases have raised the pay rates recommended by the Committee to the present salary levels.

Energy Conservation (Question No. 2385)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the 1978-79 Budget provide $30,000 for preliminary research and planning for a national energy conservation publicity campaign, and no further allocation.
  2. If so, does this indicate that the campaign will not begin before July 1979.
  3. When is the campaign likely to begin and why will the planning phase take so long.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. The proposed national energy conservation publicity campaign is being planned as a joint Commonwealth-State activity through the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, which comprises both Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for energy and minerals matters. The preliminary studies will include detailed research -on public knowledge, attitudes and behaviour with respect to energy, and the development of proposals for effective communication. These are time consuming tasks but the study is being planned to provide findings for the Council’s next meeting, anticipated in March 1979. At that meeting the Council will consider the timing and other aspects of the campaign.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation, Woomera (Question No. 2392)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 September, 1978:

  1. Have any definite plans been decided regarding the operations of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation at Woomera, SA.
  2. What arrangements are to be made regarding existing staff.
  3. Have any alternate arrangements been made regarding services now being provided by the Organisation.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. As the honourable member has previously been advised the Government intends that the community store facilities at Woomera should continue to be carried on as required to meet the needs of the local population. Proposals for the alternative service and its method of operation are still being developed. In the meantime ASCO is carrying on as previously.
  2. and (3) Should any staff become redundant as a result of the change in canteen arrangements, all practicable assistance will be given to them.

Broadcasting Licences

Dr Blewett:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, without notice, on 8 June 1978:

I direct a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It concerns those public radio stations presently licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and due shortly to come before the Broadcasting Tribunal for licensing hearings. Will the Department of Post and Telecommunications be allowed to pass on to the Tribunal reports of complaints received about those stations right up to the time of the hearing? If so, would this put complainers at a considerable advantage over people who wish to make commendations and who, under the provisions of the Act, must meet a deadline some six weeks or so before the hearing?

Mr Staley:
LP

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

After careful consideration of the matter, it was decided not to formally refer complaints to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, on the grounds that the public inquiry procedure would allow ample opportunity for open and public consideration of both complaints and commendations. Many interested parties have taken advantage of the public inquiries to present their points of view.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 October 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19781017_reps_31_hor111/>.