House of Representatives
14 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 2715

PRIVILEGE

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith) Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the decision last Thursday of the High Court of Australia in what is known as the Sankey v. Whitlam case. It dealt with the privilege of this Parliament and also Crown privilege. In the light of that decision it would appear that there is very little privilege attaching to documents presented to or statements made in a Parliament or to submissions made to the Cabinet Therefore a question arises as to what may be deemed confidential. The High Court itself, I think, has taken the view that it will determine what is privilege and what is not. In the light of that decision I ask you, Mr Speaker, to address your mind to the fact that often in this Parliament questions are asked of Ministers in respect of documents that they have in their possession, and when they indicate that the documents are confidential they are deemed to be privileged because Ministers say they are confidential. Arising from the decision of the High Court, and in the interests of freedom of information to the public generally, would you, Mr Speaker, look at whether perhaps it should be you yourself who determines whether a document is confidential or not within the confines of what the High Court has now said, namely, that to be deemed confidential a document has to be of a high security nature or basically a matter of the utmost secrecy?

In other words, what I am putting to you, Mr Speaker, is that Parliament, quite rightly, has allowed the High Court to determine what is privilege and what is not. That decision, in my opinion, definitely opens the way for members of the public and parliamentarians to have made available to them, within certain confines, the fullest possible information by the Government and no restrictions or inhibitions are to be placed on the giving of information merely because a Minister says that he regards it as confidential. What I am putting to you, Mr Speaker, is that it is not now a matter for a Minister to determine. I submit that within the confines of this House it is a matter that you yourself ought to determine.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will examine the matter raised by the honourable gentleman and report to the House on it.

page 2715

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 ever pray. by Sir William McMahon, Mr John Brown, Mr Dobie, Mr Lucock, Mr Martyr, Mr Scholes, Mr Shack, Mr Stewart and Mr Viner.

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 Lynch, Mr Aldred, Mr N. A. Brown and Mr Hunt.

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

The humble petition of the undersigned being residents of the Federal electorate of Macarthur respectfully showeth:

That the present funding of abortion through the standard medical benefits table cease.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will support the Stephen Lusher motion:

  1. to remove items from the standard medical benefit table which currently permit medical benefits for abortion:-
  2. To cease the funding of medical benefit schemes through which claims for terminating pregnancies can be made. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byMrBaume.

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

The humble petition of the undersigned being residents of the Federal electorate of Werriwa respectfully showeth:

That the present funding of abortion through the standard medical benefits table cease.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will support the Stephen Lusher motion:

  1. to remove items from the standard medical benefit table which currently permit medical benefits for abortion:-
  2. To cease the funding of medical benefit schemes through which claims for terminating pregnancies can be made. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Lusher.

Petition 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. b) Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff or 31 persons, and for the Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., “a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment”, which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the ‘ family ‘ ‘ ‘.

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will:-

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Sir William McMahon and Mr Lucock.

Petitions received.

Post Office Building, Kogarah, New South Wales

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully sheweth: That while Kogarah has an urgent need for a women ‘s rest centre and a place to expand the community aid activities of its citizens, the former post office building in Railway Parade has been left standing idle for the past four years.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this building be immediately given to the people of Kogarah for the above mentioned purposes.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Land

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

The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Indi respectfully showeth-

That land designated for acquisition in terms of the AlburyWodonga Agreement and the legislation bi-lateral therewith, but subsequently by decision of the Ministerial Council for Albury-Wodonga released from compulsory acquisition procedures and declared to be no longer necessary for development by the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation should be released from designation and returned to the sole control of Local Government Authorities for planning purposes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament direct the Chairman of the Ministerial Council to seek the agreement of the other members of the Ministerial Council to decide in favour of the release of such land from designation in order to restore to those electors of the Division of Indi affected by such designation the same rights and freedoms which they formerly enjoyed, and which are currently enjoyed by those citizens whose land was not designated for acquisition purposes in terms of the said Agreement and the supporting legislation.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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 objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose any expansion of the facilities of Kingsford Smith Airport which entails the building of a new runway as it would have the following detrimental effects. ( 1 ) The loss of one mile of waterfront including Lady Robinson’s Beach and a huge part of Botany Bay (2) The loss of up to 1,230 houses and a drop in value of remaining neighbouring properties (3) The creation of more noise pollution in the area (4) The creation of more traffic congestion on streets leading to and from the airport (5) The forced diversion of Cook’s River and further damage to the ecology of the area.

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

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

The proposed introduction of a Retail Turnover Tax will-

  1. Impose an intolerable burden on retailers- seriously inconvenience shoppers and prove difficult and expensive to administer.
  2. Increase the cost to consumers of clothing, food and other goods essential to maintenance of an adequate standard ofliving.
  3. Place a disproportionate tax burden on Australians least able to pay.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members in the House assembled will not introduce indirect tax measures such as a Retail Turnover Tax or the administratively more difficult Value Added Tax as to do so would exacerbate the inequalities in our taxing system.

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

Petition received.

Medibank

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

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

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

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

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

Petition 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 every pray by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

South Australian Country Rail Services

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

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

Petition received.

Rural Telephone Exchanges

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 citizens in rural areas are strongly opposed to the automation of manually operated telephone exchanges which is resulting in loss of employment for telephone operators in difficult economic times and the unnecessary loss of an efficient, personalised telephone service which has proven to be eminently suited to the needs of rural telephone subscribers.

We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia should be instructed to seek the views of country telephone subscribers before proceeding further with the automation program which is causing unemployment, confusion, discontent and unnecessary expense to country subscribers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to halt the program pending a full and open Parliamentary inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the automation program on country towns, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Sinclair.

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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 say we are concerned about the deteriorating standards of A.B.C. radio and Television programmes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to appoint an independent inquiry into the A.B.C. which: -

  1. Investigates the practical experience and qualification of the commissioners to perforrm their duties.
  2. Determines the effects of staff ceilings and reduction of funds, in real terms, on standards.
  3. Thoroughly reviews the organisation to determine its present effectiveness.
  4. Ascertains if any external or internal censorship exists.
  5. Makes recommendation to reduce censorship and improve the efficiency and standards.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byMrUren.

Petition received.

page 2718

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) left Australia last Sunday for Europe to have discussions concerning the multilaterial trade negotiations and for other talks with representatives of the European Economic Community. He is expected to return on 26 November. During his absence, the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) is Acting Minister for Special Trade Representations. The Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) is acting as Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and is representing the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) in this chamber until the Hon. Evan Adermann’s return to Australia later this month.

page 2718

CENSURE OF PRIME MINISTER

Notice of Motion

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of Opposition · Oxley

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

That this House censures the Prime Minister because-

1 ) in matters concerning the Minister for Primary Industry, the Prime Minister has failed to adhere to principles and practice he has stated and followed in the past requiring Ministers to stand down when they are subject to investigation in regard to matters that raise questions about the propriety of their conduct; and

this failure has led to allegations and disclosures which tend to reflect discredit onto the Parliament as a whole, and not merely on the Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry.

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

– I seek leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) to move forthwith the motion of censure of the Prime Minister of which he has given notice for the next sitting.

Leave granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Prime Minister of which he has given notice for the next sitting.

Motion of Censure

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

-I move:

That this House censures the Prime Minister because-

1 ) in matters concerning the Minister for Primary Industry, the Prime Minister has failed to adhere to principles and practice he has stated and followed in the past requiring Ministers to stand down when they are subject to investigation in regard to matters that raise questions about the propriety of their conduct; and

this failure has led to allegations and disclosures which tend to reflect discredit on to the Parliament as a whole, and not merely on the Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry.

It has become necessary to move this motion because of the impasse which has arisen in the Parliament in consequence of efforts by the Opposition to have standards of conduct enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and followed on previous occasions adopted on this occasion. Perhaps I ought to put the matter in some sort of chronological context. On 24 May this year the matter was raised in this Parliament for the first time by me. Subsequently it was raised on several occasions. Initially the purpose was to have the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) at least stand to one side while an official inquiry initiated in New South Wales into certain business matters in which he was involved was finalised. That was unsuccessful. Subsequently efforts were made to have certain documents incorporated into Hansard and when they failed efforts were made to have the documents read into the parliamentary record. Those efforts, too, were frustrated. Accordingly, the first part of the parliamentary session for this year was completed without any advance being achieved in that matter. The matter rested there until the issue flared publicly again. It became the subject of public commentary. Not only did it become the subject of public commentary but also the public commentary made it clear that the Minister for Primary Industry was the subject of investigation in relation to a range of matters which, if proven as offences which he had committed, would reflect serious breaches of the law committed by him. I want to make it clear that I have an open mind on that matter. It is not the role of this Parliament nor any member of this Parliament to seek to adjudicate on this matter. But it is the role of this Parliament to ensure that proper standards of procedure are followed in matters such as this. Accordingly the matter rightly belongs in this Parliament.

The matter became again an issue of public commentary of a very serious kind as a result of two articles which appeared in the weekly magazine, the Bulletin, on 24 and 31 October respectively. It was in the second of those articles that it was disclosed that the Minister for Primary Industry was the subject of investigation for possible multiple breaches of the Companies Act in New South Wales. Furthermore, it was quite evident that not only was he being investigated for these things but also they were largely the consequence of actions he had undertaken. Moreover, they were the product of actions he had undertaken after his late father’s death. These are important matters. I repeat: ‘Possible multiple breaches of the Companies Act’. From my counting there were as many as 12 such breaches mentioned in the article by Mr Reid in the Bulletin. The offences involved carry penalties of $2,000 or five years imprisonment or both on conviction after indictment. That makes the matter a particularly serious one for the consideration of this Parliament because under the Constitution a person is not eligible to contest nor to hold a seat in this Parliament if convicted of a crime involving imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more.

I repeat: The matter very properly is one for this Parliament. Let us have no quibbling as to whether matters of private business should be raised in this Parliament or not. Mr Speaker, when giving a ruling on 25 October 1978 in this Parliament- I suspect forgotten from time to time after- you said:

I think that if the time ever arose when the private conduct of a Minister was not a concern of the Prime Minister, then the Parliament would indeed be in a curious position.

I concur with that view. But additionally -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I interrupt the honourable member to remind him that he is not to reflect on the Chair. The honourable member made passing reference to me. He said that he suspects that I sometimes forget. He will withdraw that remark.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Additionally, I am fortified in this sense of concern by so many comments of lofty principal by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). On 9 July 1975 in the House he said this of the then Prime Minister

If the Prime Minister wants to sack one Minister for one particular act why does he not sack another who has acted in the same way?

On the same day he said:

The Prime Minister convicts one but protects and exonerates the other.

I will not go over the very lengthy list of similar types of declarations of principle from the present Prime Minister but more recently he very properly had this to say in relation to the sacking of Senator Withers:

The community rightly demand a high standard from Ministers of the Government. The judgments on Ministers are more exacting and sometimes more harsh than the judgments which might be passed on those outside the sphere of public life. If these high standards were not upheld, the people’s confidence in Government- a confidence which is fundamental to Australian democracy- would be undermined.

That is a sentiment which I endorse. It is inexplicable to me and perplexing for outsiders as to why the Prime Minister departed from that very important principle on this occasion. Bear in mind that on three previous occasions in this Parliament where, similarly, matters of the propriety and the conduct of a Minister were brought into question, where there were inquiries of some sort, Ministers were required either to resign, in the case of Mr Garland, to stand down, in the case of Mr Lynch, or to stand to one side in the case of Mr Eric Robinson. It is perplexing that an exception has been made on this occasion.

It may be argued by some, as I have heard, that this is surely trying an innocent man before he is found guilty. It is not trying a man at all; it is not trying anyone. It is a asserting a principle, the principle that the Prime Minister has declared so firmly so often, namely, that the standards expected of us in public life are much more demanding and much harsher than those standards that are generally expected in the community. Let me draw some analogies. How would one feel if one discovered that one’s friendly bank manager was responsible, allegedly, for the misappropriation of $250,000, perhaps blowing out to more than $700,000, from the local bank, from one’s own deposits? One would expect even though the gentleman had not been found guilty, that if the matter was the subject of official investigation at least he ought to stand to one side and not handle one’s money any longer- at least until one had a clearer view of the findings of the inquiry. How would one feel if a surgeon was suspected of a serious loss of competence in the performance of his professional work? Certainly one would hope that his services would be suspended from a hospital until an inquiry established one way or the other whether that competence had been impaired.

Furthermore, how would one feel if it were seriously alleged- an inquiry were under waythat an officer, say, of the Health Department who had sole custody and control of stocks of addictive drugs had been engaged in drug running? One would not want him to be left in that position where potentially he could continue in that illicit trafficking even though one had an open mind and rather hoped in that case and indeed in the other two cases that the people concerned would be exonerated. In the meantime in the interest of reassuring public confidence suspension is required in such cases pending the outcome of a proper inquiry. That is why the Prime Minister, in similar situations in this House to the one that we are discussing now in relation to the Minister for Primary Industry, has sacked, required the resignation of and has stood to one side Ministers of the Government. The same practice should be followed here. The Minister for Primary Industry says that he initiated the inquiry into this matter. I do not want to get into the dispute on that question but certain facts are significant. The Willesee at Seven transcript of 1 5 August 1977 states:

For 2 weeks we have been investigating reports of a small group of companies which had allegedly discovered discrepancies in their accounts in the order of some $250,000.

Referring to the Minister the transcript reads:

In reference to the report of $250,000 being unaccounted for he said there are no amounts outstanding which have not been accounted for within the company or between the shareholders.

That is highly disputable. The Minister went on to say:

I believe all the people involved . . . have been I believe acting in a totally honest and upright manner and I think it is most unfortunate the books were behind and for that reason I say it’s only a matter between the shareholders of the three companies.

That is nonsense, as I will prove directly when I quote from official transcripts. The second curious feature of this matter is that, although awareness of the misappropriation occurred in 1976, amended annual returns for the Allan Walsh companies for each of the years 1972 to 1975 inclusive were lodged with the Corporate Affairs Commission in New South Wales on 23 September 1977, after the Willesee program interview. Moreover, they went into the permanent record of documents in the custody and control of the Corporate Affairs Commission on 7 October 1977 and the annual return and amendments for 1976 were filed on 5 October 1977. That was a curious flurry because it occurred one to three days after the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, raised this matter in the Parliament. Then a statement was made, which I want to quote and which is highly relevant in this respect. It states:

Now in addition to that situation we have a situation to which I wish to come in a minute, a very curious situation that occurred after my terms of inquiry were extended to consider transactions occurring down to 7 June 1 978. Within a space of five days cheques in excess of $500,000 were drawn and moneys said to be repayments of the loans, moneys misappropriated, a sum in excess of $250,000, was repaid.

I do not have time to give all of the quotation. I hope that I will have the opportunity to have the document incorporated in Hansard. However, the significant thing is that the flurry occurred after the terms of reference for the inquiry were extended and the man speaking was Mr Finnane, who was carrying out the special investigation into the affairs of the Walsh group of companies. I seek leave to table in the Parliament documents relating to the Walsh group of companies, documents which were available to any interested party from the public offices of the relevant government department in New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Nixon:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I repeat that these documents are available. I merely want to make the point, and I hop-; that members of the Press who are interested will go to the offices of the Corporate Affairs Commission and seek to verify this.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to address his remarks to me and the Parliament, not the Press.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The annual returns for 1972 to 1974 inclusive were lodged by the late George Sinclair. The annual return for 1975 was lodged in April 1976 by Ian Sinclair. George Sinclair’s signature on the returns for 1 972 to 1 974 appears distinctly different from that on the 1975 return. Ian Sinclair’s signature on the 1975 return appears distinctly different from that on a number of returns of earlier years, for instance, on a return for 1973 dated in 1974 and on a return for 1972 dated February 1973. I draw no conclusion from that. I put it no higher than that there is apparently some notable dissimilarity between these signatures.

The next matter I want to deal with concerns threatened intimidation of a person who is involved in one way or another in this matter, and I refer to Mr Creighton William Walsh. I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statutory declaration in relation to this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Nixon:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The statutory declaration states:

I Creighton William Walsh of 63 Sunshine Parade, Sunshine, in the State of New South Wales do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

That on the 8 November 1978 my stepmother, Mrs Jessie Walsh, of 63 Sunshine Parade, Sunshine, received a telephone call from my brother-In-Law, Mr Brian Mahony, of 4 Karana Place, Chatswood, who had in return received a telephone call from Mr Ian McC. Sinclair, M.P. Q.C. re a telegram tabled in the House of Representatives at Question Time on the 8 November 1978.

Rt Hon Ian McC. Sinclair stated to Mr Brian Mahony and he conveyed by phone to my step-mother, Mrs Jessie Walsh by phone that if I didn’t keep quiet he would bring up my criminal charges in the House of Representatives and the matter of the lease ofthePeugot 504 . . . IAC Limited in the name of A. Walsh Investments Pty Limited and paid by Allan Walsh Pty Limited.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the “Oaths Act of 1 900- 1953”.

The declaration is signed by Creighton Walsh and witnessed by J. Hood, Justice of the Peace. J. Hood, Justice of the Peace, is the unmarried name of Mr Walsh’s step-mother. The implications of any denial by the Minister for Primary Industry on this matter are quite obvious. What has happened here, if this allegation is true, is that the Minister has sought to head off a parliamentary inquiry into the matter. He has sought to protect himself by intimidation, if this is in fact true. The point is that there is a veritable flood of these sorts of documents and communications reaching several members of this Parliament. Moreover, communications in the form of a number of documents to my knowledge have reached several sources, not all of which are in this Parliament. Accordingly, unless the Minister is suspended and proper procedures followed on this occasion, I am afraid that the Parliament will continue to be marred and muddied by innuendo and by allegations that are raised outside, and the debate in this Parliament distracted by this matter, out of necessity, quite properly in the light of what has happened. There are a number of questions I should like to raise, but before I do let me read this into the Hansard record from Mr Finnane:

Let me just tell you, and you might pass this on to your father and your stepmother if you care to do so, that from my inspection of the books and from my discussions with Mr Haylen it now appears quite clear that from the period 1962-no, from 1960 up to 1976 a sum in excess of $500,000 was taken out of the three companies. Now $200,000 of that-$250,000 or more- was taken out after 1972 and the other amount was taken out before 1972. It also seems curious to me, that in the Sinclair Pastoral Company account, there’s shown as an asset a loan account- sorry, yes, a loan account- from George Sinclair or rather from the Sinclair Pastoral Company shown as an asset of that company to Reliance Investments, some $138,000. It would appear to me quite clear that that amount could not properly said to be owing.

A little further on Mr Finnane continues:

Money was being taken from those companies by Mr Sinclair and put in the Sinclair Pastoral Company at the same time that these amounts were allegedly being lent to Reliance Investments. It appears to me that that in large part- that $138,000- is a sham, and was not an asset of the Sinclair Pastoral Company at all and Reliance Investments does not owe it. It appears to me then if that is so the moneys owing exceed $600,000. It also appears clear to me, although I have not expressed the view to any member of your family or to Mr (Ian) Sinclair at the present time, but it seems perfectly clear to me that with the exception of you, everybody else has got their heads together and have agreed, not to give false evidence so much, as to agree to present a common front. Mr Creighton Walsh: To protect somebody. Mr Finnane: With a view to preventing me from getting at the real truth of the situation -

Another extract states:

It is not a situation where one merely looks at’ what cheques were paid in and what cheques were paid out, and add them up, and says $250,000 was taken out so we’ll pay $250,000 back.

Mr Speaker, I am sorry that I have to go so fast, but I do not have much time and there is a lot more to be added. The extract continues:

It’s got to be $250,000 plus the benefits obtained by the use of that money. That, as I see it, is a much higher sum. You’re probably talking of a sum well in excess of $600,000. You may be getting close to $700,000, and that money has been taken without your father’s knowledge, at least as far as I can ascertain, prior to 1976. This is quite apart from what’s happened since 1976 . . . There are a number of other curious features. First of all, in that television interview on the Willesee Show, Mr Sinclair maintained, of course, that the moneys really hadn’t been misappropriated. Now I would reject that entirely . . . Secondly, Mr (Ian) Sinclair sought to offset the moneys that were said to be owing- that is the $250,000 from 1972 onwards- owing by the Sinclair Pastoral Company against moneys that he said was owing to the Sinclair Pastoral Company. At a meeting of Reliance Investments, in August 1977, he presented a statement in which he asserted that there was a balance only of $60,000 or thereabouts owing.

Mr Creighton Walsh: After taking out all the accountancy fees and rigging the books the way he did? Mr Finnane:

That’s right. Now, I’m quite certain that that situation is not correct.

I read another extract:

I’ll show you exactly how it was done. He -

That is Mr Sinclair-

  1. . gave Mrs Jefferies a cheque for $ 10,000 and he also gave her another cheque for $10,000 for her mother, both drawn on 9 June coming from the G. Beavan account. He presented a schedule of all the loans that had been made, or what he said were loans to the Sinclair Pastoral Company in those two years, and he showed how interest was paid. Now, some of those loans were made at various stages and repaid at various stages, but no interest was paid until after 7 June 1978. In fact, on 9 June 1978, was the first time interest cheques were paid from the Sinclair Pastoral Company. It appears to me perfectly obvious that members of your family have been persuaded by being given large cheques and by being given this interest, to agree that it would be in the best interest if they all agreed that they somehow knew about all this, and in some way or other had given some vague general authority for him- (Mr Ian S inclair)- to do all this. Now I find that very hard to accept.

So do I, Mr Speaker. Unfortuntately, time prevents me from outlining a number of other comments equally as damaging as this. I repeat that it is not a matter of seeking to try this matter in this House. It is a matter of having the inquiry properly conducted without the Parliament being disrupted and that requires suspension of the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Motion ( by Mr Young) negatived:

That the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time.

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

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). I will not go into all the details, but, with respect to the alleged intimidation, I again state that up to the time when the honourable gentleman alleged that I had in some way intimidated Mr Creighton Walsh I had not spoken to Mr Creighton Walsh. The person who spoke to him was a Mr Brian Mahony, to whom I spoke about other matters. I tabled a telex received from Mr Brian Mahony regarding the discussions that he had with Mrs Jessie Walsh. He also at no stage spoke with Mr Creighton Walsh. He states:

Iam not aware of any facts on which it could be suggested that I have intimidated Mr C. W. Walsh.

He also states:

I have not at any time claimed to act on your behalf.

That is, on my behalf. There is absolutely no basis on which any credibility can be given to the honourable gentleman’s claim that in any way I haveintimidated Mr C. W. Walsh or any member of the Walsh family.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, the statutory declaration is signed by -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr Hyde:

– I raise a point of order. As I understand it, the substantive motion before the Chair concerns the Prime Minister. Yet the Leader of the Opposition is using the opportunity to slander not the Prime Minister but the Minister for Primary Industry. It strikes me, therefore, that he is out of order. Will you please rule on that, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion was put in these terms:

That this House censures the Prime Minister because-

1 ) In matters concerning the Minister for Primary Industry the Prime Minister has failed to adhere to principles -

And so on. I understood that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was to establish the basis upon which he would wish the House to censure the Prime Minister.

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley-Leader of the Opposition)- I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable gentleman wishes to make a personal explanation, he may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The statutory declaration from which I quoted was signed by Mr Creighton Walsh. It was witnessed by a justice of the peace, Mrs J. Hood, who is his stepmother -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable gentleman claims to have been misrepresented. Can he tell us in what way he has been misrepresented?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Leader of the Opposition to state the basis of the misrepresentation.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The statutory declaration was witnessed by a justice of the peace- J. Hoodwho is his stepmother -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will state the manner in which he has been misrepresented.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The statement I made was -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I take a point of order. The honourable gentleman is merely repeating allegations he has made. He is not stating the way in which he has been misrepresented. For how long should the Leader of the Opposition be allowed to use a point of procedure to continue to make and repeat a charge?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will tell me the manner in which he has been misrepresented.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I stated several times ‘if the allegations are correct ‘. I did not assert that it was a fact that the Minister for Primary Industry had threatened Mr Creighton Walsh. I pointed out that the witness -

Government members- Sit down.

Mr HAYDEN:

-They are behaving like Westem Districts larrikins now.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address his remarks to me.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Perhaps I could finish the point I want to make. The person who witnessed the document was Mr Creighton Walsh’s stepmother, Mrs Jessie Walsh. She signed the document in her maiden name of J. Hood.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has made those points in debate. I do not believe that he can recapitulate what he has already said. Is the motion seconded?

Mr Keating:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak following the next Government speaker.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has raised this matter on a number of occasions, even though it is the subject of an official inquiry being conducted by a quasijudicial body which is an instrument of the Government of New South Wales. This House ought to note that no charges or official allegations have been made by the New South Wales Government or the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission against the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in relation to his position as executor of his father’s estate and as a director of family companies connected with that estate. It is important, I think, for us all to have that very much in mind. The Minister himself has set in train the investigations which have led to the examination by the Corporate Affairs Commission. When the Minister became executor of his father’s estate the Minister realised that matters needed examination. The matter was referred to independent accountants, to the Taxation Office and to the Corporate Affairs Commission- all on the Minister’s initiative.

One of the wonders of this situation is this: Since the Corporate Affairs Commission was being kept fully informed of whatever was occurring in relation to the companies, why was it so necessary for the New South Wales Government to establish an official inquiry of its own, over and above the inquiries which the Minister had authorised, and indeed instigated, and which were designed to make sure that whatever needed to be done was done to put the affairs of the companies in order? Nevertheless, that official inquiry is in train, even though the Minister had set in train inquiries on account of himself, the other partners and the companies. But still no charge has been laid and no official allegations have been made by the New South Wales Government or the Corporate Affairs Commission. We know that the New South Wales Government has appointed- this was subsequent to the inquiries that the Minister initiated- Mr Finnane, a Sydney barrister, to carry out an investigation of the companies. But as yet he has not reported, and he has made it perfectly plain that he will not be ready to report for a considerable time. Mr Finnane has also made it perfectly plain that some earlier allegations about the nature of some of his inquiries or the purpose of a letter were in fact untrue. That again is a matter that this House ought to have in mind.

I indicated a considerable time ago that this matter ought to await the outcome of the New South Wales inquiries, await the resolution of the matter; that it ought not to be prejudged, ought not to be torn apart by the use of that part of the evidence selectively presented to this Parliament. I believe- I will argue this point in a moment or two- that as much damage can be done by the interruption of the proceedings of a quasi judicial body, which the Corporate Affairs Commission is, as would occur if the matter were before a judicial body. I think the Parliament puts itself in a very difficult position indeed when it allows a matter to be part heard, when it allows selective evidence to be introduced into this Parliamentevidence which was gained by the Leader of the Opposition by a manner and means which we do not know. Doing that certainly must prejudice in one form or another the results of the inquiry of the quasi judicial body. Whether this Parliament should allow itself to be put in that position I think is very much open to question and very much open to doubt. I know the traditional rules in relation to these matters and I will come to that matter in a moment.

Time has passed and circumstances have changed since the original sub-judice rules were introduced to provide protection in relation to the proceedings of Parliament. But whatever this Parliament ought to do, I certainly believe, with the knowledge that I have, that I ought to wait for the outcome of the proceedings which have come about as a result of matters initiated by the Minister. That is a pertinent point which we all ought to have in mind. In the meantime, the Leader of the Opposition has sought to raise under parliamentary privilege, at Question Time on a number of occasions and again today, a series of allegations substantially damaging to the Minister. By innuendo the Leader of the Opposition has sought consistently to cast doubt on the Minister’s integrity. He has also called upon me to ask the Minister to stand down pending the results of the New South Wales inquiry. I have made it plain that, with my present knowledge, I believe that we ought to wait until we have the results of that inquiry.

No Prime Minister is required in any way to ask that a Minister stand down merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, especially when an inquiry has been set up already by a State government- and the inquiry is not based on specific allegations. That point ought to be made very plain because quite obviously, in those circumstances, any Leader of the Opposition could come forward and make allegation after allegation and state: ‘I have made an allegation and therefore something ought to happen’. It is time not only in this Parliament but also in the outside world that, when members of this Parliament rise in their places and make allegations about members of this House or about people outside this House, they ought to be asked for their evidence in relation to those allegations. When there is no substantial evidence, quite plainly the charge ought to be against the person who stands and makes the original allegation.

We have had in this circumstance the Leader of the Opposition seek to introduce part of the evidence put before a quasi judicial body, seek to have this House make a judgment in relation to it and seek to have a person condemned as a result. I cannot believe that there is any member of this House who in his heart would believe that that is a fair way to proceed, that that is a correct way in which to judge the circumstances in relation to a person. In this particular matter the Leader of the Opposition has a duty both to the integrity of this Parliament and to the integrity of the inquiry being conducted by the New South Wales Government to cease trying to conduct his own form of inquiry by misusing parliamentary privilege in this House where he knows quite well there will only be partial evidence presented and pardy heard, without all the facts being known. When the matter is under examination by a quasi judicial body it ought to be allowed to conduct its business and its affairs without the interference of the Leader of the Opposition.

Dr Klugman:

– You are a hypocrite.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr Klugman:

– Surely you can remember -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Dr Klugman:

-I withdraw.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Leader of the Opposition is quite plainly seeking to prejudice, if not the outcome of a New South Wales Government quasi judicial inquiry, certainly the public circumstances under which the results of that inquiry would be received by the world at large. He is doing it in a way that brings nothing but contempt onto himself and contempt onto the processes of this Parliament. It allows the proceedings of a quasi judicial body to be subverted by this particular method. I believe that if the New South Wales Government had concern for integrity in relation to this matter, as a result of the interference of the Leader of the Opposition it would say that the matter cannot be heard properly and fairly and with justice and would therefore cease the inquiry if it were concerned for justice.

The suggestions of collusion between the Labor Government of New South Wales and the Labor Opposition of this Parliament are very grave indeed. I make no aspersions about the integrity of the person conducting the inquiry, Mr Finnane, but it is perfectly plain he is not the only person in New South Wales who has had access to these particular documents. The Leader of the Opposition’s approach has been confused and confusing, sometimes even to the extent of not appearing to know which members of a particular family he is dealing with. We know quite well that in the presentation of his evidence he has got names wrong, and has not read his own brief. He has brought no credit upon himself as a result. Certainly, if he had any information which he believed would assist the inquiry he should make it available to Mr Finnane rather than present it in this Parliament. It is a quasi judicial body authorised by a government, authorised by the decisions of a government in relation to these particular matters. If the Leader of the Opposition has original information as opposed to information that has come from the inquiry it is perfectly plain what his public and parliamentary duty requires of him- to make it available to Mr Finnane, to make it available to the inquiry.

Once Mr Finnane reports to the New South Wales Government and once that Government makes a statement as to its proposed course of action or inaction, the Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to raise the matter, which would be the appropriate and proper time for the matter to be debated in this Parliament. To continue as the Leader of the Opposition has done day by day in this House does him and his party no credit. It reflects not only on his own standards of decency in relation to other honourable members of this House; it also casts doubt on his own confidence in the capacity of the New South Wales Government to conduct a satisfactory inquiry. Oh no, they cannot leave it to that official inquiry; the Leader of the Opposition must step in on top of it with the protection of this Parliament, introducing partial and selective evidence obviously designed to be as damaging as possible, irrespective of the totality of the facts which would be available to the inquiry.

Mr Young:

– What was Phil Lynch guilty of? He was sacked.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent. He not only knows that it is out of order to make interjections; it is also unparliamentary to cast innuendoes about any other member of this Parliament.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– In the future, until the New South Wales Government makes known its reaction to Mr Finnane ‘s report, the Leader of the Opposition should be well advised to direct his questions on this matter to Mr Finnane or to the New South Wales Government itself because they are the ones conducting the inquiry and they have better access to the information than any person in this Parliament. The conduct of this case does, I believe, raise very serious questions for the Parliament as a parliament, for the integrity of this Parliament and the way it conducts its affairs, for the decency, for the integrity of members- of all members- and the way they conduct their business because the rules of sub judice are rules which are devised and established for very real and cogent reasons. It was known and it is still known that the course of justice can be subverted, that the course of justice can be destroyed, by improper debate in a parliament about a matter that is before a court upon whose judgment the future and faith of individuals or of the people can depend.

But since those rules were originally devised for the protection of the people, for the protection of individuals in our society, a new development has taken place over a large part of this century, and that is the development of quasijudicial bodies with many of the protections of a full judicial inquiry. But I believe that the parliamentary rules have not adapted to the changed circumstances because there are many circumstances in which a quasi-judicial inquiry can be prejudiced- and this case is demonstrating it very plainly- by what happens and what is said in a parliament just as much as a judicial inquiry, or the judicial process itself. The impact of a report of a judicial inquiry and the impact of a report of a quasi-judicial inquiry on individuals and their future can be very similar.

Mr Speaker, whilst not arguing with the ruling that you gave in this matter a few days ago- as one would expect, that was completely consistent with practice in these matters- I believe that there is a responsibility for Parliament to reexamine its practices and that this case gives us cause to do so because on this occasion it is a matter of politicians and the Opposition attacking the Minister for Primary Industry. But what would be our attitude if it were not an internal debate within this Parliament? What would be our attitude if as a result of a quasi-judicial process some member or members of this Parliament sought to attack a person, not a member of this Parliament, being examined by that quasi- judicial process? I suggest that in those circumstances the Parliament as a parliament might take a view different from that which some members on the Opposition side of the House take at the present time because quite plainly the integrity of the Parliament, the reputation of the Parliament, will be lowered and it will be destroyed if it continues on the present path. Therefore, we need to re-examine this matter.

In conclusion, I think it is worth recalling that in the sitting days since 17 October the Leader of the Opposition has asked, I think, 18 questions. Ten of those questions concerned the financial arrangements of the Minister for Primary Industry. One dealt with a private dinner; three dealt with the economy; one was on export controls; one was on mineral exports; one- only one- was on the very serious question of employment; and one was on the question of Jewish discrimination by Qantas Airways Ltd. The only conclusion can be that the Leader of the Opposition rates personal criticism above matters of national concern, and puts vitriol, vilification and vituperation before constructive criticism designed to contribute to the better government of this Commonwealth.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-Mr Speaker, what a trite argument -

Motion ( by Mr Howard) put:

That the question be now put

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

AYES: 77

NOES: 34

Majority…… 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 34

NOES: 77

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2727

INCORPORATION IN HANSARD

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a document described as ‘Special Investigation into the Affairs of the Walsh Group of Companies- Examination of Mr Creighton William Walsh held at Sydney’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Leave is refused.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The Prime Minister observed that there was selective quoting. I wanted all of the quotations to be included.

page 2727

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2727

QUESTION

BUSINESS CONFIDENCE

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister in anticipation of a response which the Leader of the Opposition will give next Sunday to his broadcast which was made last Sunday night. Did the Prime Minister say in his address to the nation that business confidence is returning? Is he aware of the results of the September survey of the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Bank of New South Wales which showed that a smaller proportion of respondents expected an improvement in the general business situation than in the previous quarter? Further, how does he reconcile his comment with the results of the latest Australian Chamber of Commerce/National Bank of Australia quarterly business survey which showed a slow-down in trading activity and a fall in the proportion of firms expecting to increase investment? On what basis did he make his assertion? Is he comparing the degree of business confidence now with the level one year or two years ago? Generally, how on earth does he justify that assertion?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Many businesses in this country now know that they can plan ahead with confidence and invest with confidence. Business investment has been increasing very greatly. As I indicated on Sunday night, as a result of the oil pricing decisions that were taken about IS months ago, $ 1,000m worth of development and exploration funds was committed by two companies in Bass Strait and at Exmouth Gulf off the Western Australian coast. A number of firms are rebuilding export organisations, penetrating some of the most difficult markets in the world. At least one of the major motor corporations is rebuilding its export organisation and has been employing substantially greater numbers of people over recent times. This is possible only when inflation is down and coming down further. It is possible only with stable government policies; with a cost base which enables industries to plan ahead. In addition, one has only to look at the rural area. While one would not want to read more into figures than one should, it is pleasing to note that the figures released by my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, show that vacancies in country towns give some indication of an increase, maybe for the first time for a long while.

If that is the beginning of a trend, it would be indicative of the real optimism throughout the rural areas of Australia where incomes and the prospects for incomes are better than they have been for maybe 10 or 15 years. Again, that is because inflation is down, the season around Australia is good, we have better access to markets overseas and, as a consequence, the price prospects for beef, sheep, wool, wheat and other rural products are better than they have been for a very long while. I think it was only three or four weeks ago that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics upgraded its estimates of farm income for this year by almost $400 m. If one speaks to agents in country areas one will see that the prospects and optimism are greater than they have been for a long while. The forward order business for machinery agents and motor firms in country towns again is better than it has been for a long while. We know quite well that the Leader of the Opposition likes to talk of a decade of despair. Occasionally I can find matters on which I agree with members of the Australian Labor Party. Neville Wran has spoken in glowing and optimistic terms about the Australia of the 1980s. I share my optimism with him.

page 2727

QUESTION

ELECTRONIC LISTENING DEVICES IN AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY MOSCOW

Mr GILES:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to a disturbing

Press report today which states that Russian electronic listening devices have been discovered in offices of the Commonwealth Government. Is this report correct? If so, has the Government made the strongest possible protest to the Government of the Soviet Union over this deplorable incident?

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

-I have seen the report. It is incorrect to say that listening devices have been discovered in government premises inside Australia. Therefore the question that is contained in the report of the Government expelling or threatening to expel any Soviet official who is attached to Soviet diplomatic establishments in Australia has not arisen. However, a network of listening devices was discovered in the Australian Embassy in Moscow in June of this year. The devices were carefully hidden in the walls of rooms used by Austraiian diplomatic officers. Obviously the Government and its advisers could conclude only that the devices had been installed by agencies of the Soviet Government for the purpose of overhearing private conversations between Australian officials. The Government protested in the strongest possible terms to the Soviet Government at what it regarded as a flagrant and serious breach of diplomatic propriety. I summoned the Soviet Ambassador to inform him that the Government could interpret this evidence of intensive Soviet intelligence activity only as implying hostile intent towards Australia. I informed the Ambassador further that the Government had decided to cancel scheduled officials’ talks between Austraiian and Soviet foreign ministries. I said further that the Government had also decided against signing in July an agreement providing for the extension of the bilateral cultural program. Furthermore, we later decided to suspend plans for the holding of a meeting to review the science agreement with the Soviet Union which had been due to take place in Moscow in September. The Austraiian protest was repeated by the Austraiian Ambassador in Moscow.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You sent a parliamentary delegation there instead.

Mr PEACOCK:

– We have not got much from the Soviet side. Perhaps the honourable member can give us all the information, if he treats it as such a joke. I can tell him that I seriously considered not sending that delegation, and so I ought. The Soviet Government has claimed that Soviet organisations were not involved and that the implanting of the devices must have been the work of others. We have responded that this explanation is unconvincing and that the Australian Government must continue to believe that the devices had been installed by or at the direction of the Soviet authorities. The Government continues to regard this matter with the utmost seriousness. The Soviet Union has been shown to be actively engaged in activities of an espionage character which it has recently and unconvincingly condemned in others, including some of its own courageous citizens. It need scarcely be emphasised that hostile intelligence activities detract seriously from the purpose of improving and developing relations between the Soviet Union and Australia, a purpose to which the Australian Government has been diligently directing its efforts. We are not disposed to be turned away from this purpose. It is to be hoped that the Government of the Soviet Union will do likewise and direct its energies towards the same objective and refrain from further activities of a nature likely to damage mutually beneficial relations. In the meantime, as I have said, we regard it as a flagrant and serious breach of diplomatic propriety.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Mr Young:

– You are running away.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The House will come to order. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I warn the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

page 2728

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975 I present the report of the Australian Postal Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2728

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962 I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 2728

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHAPMAN:

– Yes. I refer to an article in the Canberra Times of today’s date, 14 November 1978. At page 3 an article written by Ian Warden and headed ‘MPs press on to victory’ records in some detail the crushing victory achieved yesterday by the Parliamentary Cricket Team over the Press Gallery team by 1 54 runs to 113 runs. One part of this article records that Mr Hadley Pearson -

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

– Who is that?

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I am beginning to wonder who it is. The article states:

Mr Hadley Pearson, who had begun to look like a pink Sobers before he was the victim of an appalling lbw decision, made 10.

A search of the parliamentary XI ‘s team sheet and indeed of the score book and of the parliamentary members list itself fails to reveal a Mr Hadley Pearson.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honourable gentleman has claimed that he has been misrepresented. If he gave the decision I can accept it, but if he did not give the decision he had better quickly tell me how he has been misrepresented.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-I am not referring to the decision nor disagreeing with the basic thrust of what is written in the article. As I have said, a search of the team sheet and of the parliamentary list fails to reveal the existence of a Mr Hadley Pearson. Further research shows that this portion of the article is referring to me.

Mr Baume:

– You made only 10.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– Only 10, as the honourable member for Macarthur says. However, as the article records, it was a very bad decision which caused my dismissal. The point I wish to make is that I have not changed my name by deed poll and my name remains Grant Chapman and not Hadley Pearson.

page 2729

REPORT OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Ministerial Statement

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · Stirling · LP

– by leave- Mr Speaker, on 25 May this year, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced a new Government initiative with regard to parliamentary committee reports. Following the Prime Minister’s statement, all committee reports will receive a Government response, to be made by a Minister in Parliament within six months of the presentation of the report. I have the honour to make the first such response, on behalf of the Prime Minister. I would like to inform honourable members of action the Government has taken in response to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment report on annual reports referred to the Committee dated 1 March 1978. In preparing its report, the Committee examined 13 annual reports of government departments and authorities which come within its terms of reference, and commented on the Government’s performance as revealed in the annual reports. There were numerous matters raised in the Committee ‘s report, and I do not propose to respond to every detail in this statement. I can assure honourable members that all the matters raised have been brought to the attention of the departments and authorities concerned, who have given assurances that the matters will be borne in mind during the preparation of future annual reports.

One matter upon which the Committee commented at some length was the need for government bodies to report promptly to the Parliament, to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s activities. The Government shares the Committee’s concern, and continual efforts are being made to ensure that government departments and statutory authorities submit reports to Parliament with the minimum of delay. There are of course instances where reports are delayed through no fault of the author, but means of circumventing such delays are being examined. The Committee referred in particular to three annual reports which were over a year overdue when presented. These three reports were exceptional cases. For example, the Cities Commission Report fell due at a time when the department concerned, now the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, was undergoing extensive reorganisation; and the preparation of the report was overshadowed by tasks of greater priority. In cases where annual reports cannot be finalised, for example, where there is a delay due to a statutory requirement for the Auditor-General’s certification to appear in the report, it is sometimes possible to submit interim reports which provide the Parliament with much of the information contained in the final report and lacking only the official certification. Standing instructions require this course to be followed.

Under the heading ‘General Comments’, the Committee also made suggestions relating to the format and content of annual reports. Points raised included the desirability of appendices which could supply detailed background information about the work of the reporting body. The Committee also suggested that reports could examine the extent to which government bodies are able to fulfil their objectives, and means of improving their performance in this area. The

Government appreciates the trouble the Committee has taken to remind departments of ways in which annual reports could better fulfil the function of reporting to the Parliament, and the relevant departments will bear these suggestions in mind in the preparation of future reports. The third major point raised by the Committee concerned the effects of staff ceilings. The Government’s policy is to maintain the utmost restraint on the levels of public service staffing. During 1978-79 departments and authorities will be expected to absorb new functions and workload increases within existing ceilings unless it is quite unreasonable to do so. The achievement of the ceilings will require permanent heads and Ministers to explore exhaustively the possibility of redeploying staff between functions, deferring programs or reducing the level of staff activity in some areas. I present the following paper:

Report of Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment- Ministerial Statement, 14 November 1978

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I respond on behalf of the Opposition. Seven months ago, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced:

Within six months of the tabling of a committee report -

That is, reports of parliamentary committees- the responsible Minister will make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposes to take in relation to the report.

This is the first statement to follow from that policy. It outlines the Government’s response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on annual reports dated 1 March 1978. The statement outlines the Government’s response only to the general comments of the Committee. It does not deal with the many specific remarks the Committee made on the 1 3 reports that it considered.

The statement of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), to put it fairly, could be called mild. On the whole, it concurs with the comments and criticisms made by the Senate Committee. There is, however, one notable exception. The Committee referred to the untoward, if unforeseen, effects in some instances’ of the Government’s decision to impose across-the-board staff ceilings. In at least three cases this was a matter of concern to the Government authorities involved. The 1975-76 annual report of the Australian Institute of Marine Science stated that good research had been done, despite the restrictions imposed by financial cutbacks and staff ceilings’. The staff ceiling of the

Institute had been reduced by more than 50 per cent for June 1977. The latest report of the Institute also comments on this problem. Total staffing is half of that originally expected for this time and the chairman of the council of the Institute commented:

In these circumstances a reasonably balanced research program cannot be mounted and the broader functions of the Institute properly pursued.

That this has taken place concurrently with the extension of Australia’s maritime responsibilities to cover 200 miles of the ocean is a serious reflection on the rationality of the Government’s staff ceilings policy. Secondly, the fact that staff levels of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board were ‘significantly’ below the approved establishment in 1976-77 was having an adverse effect on the payment of grants in support of research and development. This was because a substantial backlog of applications for industrial research development grants had built up and no provision existed in the legislation for the restrospective payment of grants. Again, given the need for increased research and development effort in Australia and given the Government’s expressed interest in promoting research and development in Australian industry, it is surely a contradiction to make the administration of grants more difficult by reduced staff ceilings.

Thirdly, staff ceilings in the Department of Science were having adverse effects on the ionospheric prediction services branch, the work of which is related to the maintenance of radio communication in Australia. Since then, there has been a marginal, but only marginal, increase in the branch’s staff. The Minister’s statement today in response to these problems merely reiterates the Government’s position on staff ceilings. The Public Service can expect no respite from this Government. The Minister only says:

Departments and authorities will be expected to absorb new functions and work load increases within existing ceilings unless it is quite unreasonable to do so.

Clearly, it is quite unreasonable to do so in all of the instances which have been enumerated in the course of this report that we are considering. On 25 May the Prime Minister said that the Government intended ‘to see that the work of parliamentary committees does not pass unheeded’. Whether the back benchers who drew the Government’s attention to these problems are satisfied with today’s statement remains to be seen.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 2731

PRIVILEGE

Mr YATES:
Holt

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege which was initiated earlier by the Deputy Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). The High Court of Australia has endeavoured to pass a ruling or make a statement which concerns the privileges of this honourable House. I would be grateful if you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would convey my views to Mr Speaker- that the High Court ‘s decision is ultra vires. This House in 1 90 1 was given its parliamentary privileges, which were to be no more and no less than those enjoyed by the House of Commons at that date. The Constitution also determined that this House should decide matters of privilege for itself and that nobody else should do so. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the Committee of Privileges has sat on a number of occasions. You will be aware also that the privileges that belong to this House are something upon which we will have no adjudication at all by anybody other than the members of this House. If this House is not prepared to care for its privileges, which it has been granted, if it wishes to accept what exists in the United States of America, and if a supreme court starts telling this House what its duties are, that will be the greatest possible tragedy for this House and for all its members. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful if you would be so kind as to convey my views to Mr Speaker. I consider that under the Constitution any judicial interpretation on what are our rights belong to this House alone and to no other body.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-The matter of privilege which has been raised by the honourable member for Holt will be considered and a report will be given to the House.

page 2731

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Amendment Bill 1978.

Dried Vine Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1978.

Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1 978.

page 2731

FUEL INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Mr Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer), the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, Mr Speaker has selected one matter, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Casey, namely:

The serious threat to the Australian community from the strike in the fuel industry.

I therefore 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 FALCONER:
Casey

-There is a serious threat to the Australian community from the strike in the fuel industry. Tanker drivers employed by oil companies in Victoria went on strike on Wednesday of last week. This was purportedly in protest against the action of a Seymour oil agent who had issued a writ against members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia. Previously, these TWU members had prevented employees of the Seymour oil agent, who were also members of the TWU, from collecting fuel supplies from the Esso Australia Ltd terminal at Spotswood. The Seymour oil agent had sent his own employees- who are, I repeat, members of the TWU- to the Esso terminal to pick up supplies of oil to carry out his normal business activities. The oil agent issued writs seeking damages under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. We know that the strike has virtually crippled Victoria by now. Only yesterday, the federal executive of the TWU called a national stoppage of tanker drivers and aircraft refuellers to commence at midnight tonight.

Whose rights are at stake in this dispute? Firstly, the rights of the small businessman are at stake. We are not dealing here with an oil agent who is a strike breaker or with anyone who was employing scab labour. This person was employing his own labour, being good unionists, to carry out his normal business activities. If we are to apply the logic of the Transport Workers Union that only people that it deems to be appropriate union members should transport fuel supplies, we have to say that all sorts of people will be banned from a great many normal activities. What would happen if someone who was employed delivering goods from retail stores to ordinary households told his customers: ‘You cannot come and pick up your own supplies. You are not allowed to make the decision as to what is best for yourself and what is the best cost structure for you to maintain. We will deliver the goods to you and you will have to maintain the cost of that particular activity’? All sorts of small businessmen would not be able to use their own labour- union labour in most cases- to pick up the supplies and the raw materials which they need for their own activities.

Mr Baume:

– Greengrocers.

Mr FALCONER:

– As has been pointed out, this situation would apply to the greengrocers who go to a market early in the morning to pick up supplies to sell in their shops that day. So the matter involves the rights of the small businessmen of the community to carry out their normal activities. Secondly, it involves the rights of other unionists in the Transport Workers Union. This dispute does not involve unionists against nonunionists; it involves members of the Transport Workers Union against other members of the Transport Workers Union. I read with disgust in this morning’s Press- I hope other honourable members also read the article with disgust- that yesterday members of the Transport Workers Union who were on strike barred from a meeting on the issue country members of the same union who wanted to turn up to express their view on the subject. As I have said, honourable members ought to be disgusted with that activity. I am sure that most Australians were disgusted with it.

The matter affects not only the rights of other unionists in the Transport Workers Union but also the rights of other unionists throughout the country. It has been suggested that about 2,000 service station workers are in immediate danger of being stood down. Many workers throughout many industries also will be in danger of being stood down in the next few days. Certainly some workers in some industries already have been stood down and a number of others have been given notice that they will be stood down unless fuel supplies can be obtained. The rights of the public are also involved. Approximately 75 per cent of Melbourne’s service stations are out of petrol as the strike enters its sixth day. Finally, and most importantly, this industrial action is prejudicial to the recovery of the economy. One wonders whether that is the real motive of those who have engineered this strike. There was a power strike in Victoria late last year. Anyone who is in touch with industries in Victoria and in other parts of the country will know that many companies and firms are just recovering from the adverse effects of that power strike. Now they are faced with this dispute which has denied them essential fuel supplies.

Let us look at what this strike is not about. It is not a strike by employees against their employers over wages and conditions. No argument about the right to strike is involved. If so, it should not be. But the argument about the right to work is deeply involved in this whole issue. This strike does not even involve allegations by one group of employees that another employer is exploiting his workers. It is not even a demarcation dispute in the normal sense between two unions as to the members of which union should have the right to perform certain work. Those disputes are surely bad enough in themselves. This dispute involves the members of only one union- one group in one union against another group in the same union. It is an attack by certain people against the rights of other members of their union. I think that most Australian workers will make up their own minds about who are the real scabs in that situation. The issue at stake is not the right to strike; it is the right to work. No wonder many trade unionists throughout Australia are hostile about the dispute and about being done out of their jobs.

As we have seen in the last 24 hours the dispute is now to be extended nationally. Of course, it is already affecting some other areas of the country. A difficulty is starting to emerge with regard to transport activities between Victoria and Tasmania. One wonders whether Tasmania once again will be isolated from her sister States and held to ransom by, in this case, the Victorian industrial gangsters who have such a great influence in the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party and in the ALP in general. No doubt that is why we are not hearing a peep from honourable members opposite. They did not bother to rise to support the discussion of this matter of public importance. They have certainly not made many interjections about it. It is silliness and irresponsibility on the part of the members of the national management committee of the Transport Workers Union to extend the dispute nationally. What does the dispute have to do with aircraft refuellers and tanker drivers in other parts of Australia? It has nothing to do with them in Victoria. It certainly has nothing to do with them in other parts of Australia.

Let us look at the possible motives for the bringing on of this dispute. Firstly, it must be stated that no genuine industrial relations matters are involved. It is a strike at the lifeblood of the economy. It is not a matter concerning wages and conditions. It is a matter concerning the rights of other people in the community- people who have to observe industrial awards- to carry out their business in the way in which they see fit but within the law. It indicates an arrogant attitude on the part of some union officials that they should be above the law. This is indicated by the threats that they are making to march on the Federal Court of Australia when the action under section 4SD of the Trade Practices Act is to be heard. Surely that is an arrogant and disreputable effort to intimidate a court of the Commonwealth of Australia.

One might assume that it is an effort to achieve a greater concentration of union power in the hands of a certain group of militant trade union leaders. Obviously the Transport Workers Union bosses fear the independence of small businessmen and contractors who are prepared to work and to continue working to keep their own businesses afloat and the lifeblood of the economy flowing. The Transport Workers Union industrial bosses do not want alternative means of carrying fuel and other essential supplies to exist in the economy so that when they snap their fingers they can bring the economy to a standstill and there will not be other alternative sources of transport to keep the wheels of industry turning.

How has this strike been brought about on a national basis? At a telephone hook-up of the federal management committee of the Transport Workers Union it was decided to call out 2,500 tanker drivers and aircraft refuellers from midnight tonight. Are the members of the management committee of the Transport Workers Union who made a decision by way of a telephone hook-up between themselves to be regarded as being representative of the Australian work force? I suggest that if the average Australian unionists had a vote on the issue they would have a telephone hook-up for sure. They would hook up the members of the TWU management committee by the neck with telephone wires and hang them from the highest pole. That would be the attitude of the majority of the Australian trade unionists to the action of those industrial gangsters.

As I have already noted, the Victorian members of the TWU who are responsible for this action are threatening to march on the Federal Court when the case is due to be heard. I submit that citizens are entitled to have their court actions determined on their merits, without the plaintiff and the court itself being subject to intimidation. Mr Hodgson, the Federal Secretary of the TWU, made no secret of his intimidatory intentions.

Mr Bourchier:

– He is also a member of the Labor Party.

Mr FALCONER:

-Yes, Mr Hodgson is a member of the Labor Party, and that ought to be noted. Mr Hodgson said, as reported, in the Age this morning:

This dispute could be settled in five minutes if Mr Gorman instructed his lawyer to withdraw the writs and entered into negotiations with us.

That is an intimidatory statement if ever I heard one. Matters involving individual citizens in our community having recourse to the law to obtain redress should be decided in the courts without that sort of intimidation. At least we can compliment Mr Hodgson on his frankness in his attitude. He apparently believes that his union, and particularly, the actions that he cares to initiate through his union, should not be subject to the law. He apparently believes that he ought to be free of legal restraint to negotiate with small businessmen on his terms, backed as he is by the might of his union militants. I do not think that any of us are in any doubt about what is meant by negotiation with Mr Hodgson. If he is prepared to have his union bully boys march on the Federal Court of Australia, imagine the tactics he would use against a small company to ensure that he got his way.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that during the course of this dispute over the last few days we have not heard any condemnatory statements from members of the Opposition. We have not heard members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party condemning this dispute in any way. They are not sticking up for the rights of small businessmen who want to carry on their activities and who want to be free to work in an honest way to secure their own livelihoods and to make the wheels of industry turn. They are not sticking up for the rights of other unionists in the Transport Workers Union who, probably traditionally have been supporters of the Australian Labor Party. But they will not be for long if this situation carries on; that is for sure. The members of the Labor Opposition are not sticking up for other unionists throughout the country- for the 2,000 service station workers who are in immediate danger of being stood down and for the many other unionists employed in all sorts of factories and undertakings throughout the country who will be in danger of being stood down if their companies cannot obtain the necessary fuel supplies to keep them going.

The members of the Labor Opposition are not sticking up for the rights of members of the public to go about their ordinary affairs in their motor vehicles, to go about their affairs concerned with their businesses, with their family activities or for purposes of their own pleasure. The rights of the public ought to have some standing in this Parliament. Certainly, members of the Opposition are not observing them. The members of the Labor Opposition are not sticking up for the rights of all members of the Australian community to have the economy improve and to have it continue on its upswing. In fact, one has the suspicion that they are surreptitiously and secretly pleased to see some disruption to the economy so that this Government, in their eyes, will be blamed for lack of recovery. It seems in many respects that they are pleased to see this strike. We on this side of the House support the rights of individual workers and of all citizens involved in the Australian economy to be able to go about their businesses and to conduct their affairs in a normal and peaceful way, without intimidation.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– What is happening in our industrial relations throughout Australia at the present dme is a matter of national importance that this Parliament should discuss. But the sort of proposition that has been selected for discussion by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) does huie for industrial relations. The matter of public importance brought forward by the honourable member is couched in words of confrontation, words of hate; they are words which demonstrate his anti-unionist feelings. Can any honourable member imagine anybody thinking he can settle a dispute by suggesting that we execute the union leaders? The honourable member says: ‘Hang them from the telephone wires. That is the best thing to do’. Does not the honourable gentleman know that at the present time responsible leaders from throughout this nation- that, of course, does not include members of the Federal Government- are in conference discussing terms of settlement? Does he not know that Mr Hamer, the Premier of Victoria, suggested that the writs about which he was so worried should be withdrawn? The Opposition has brought forward a matter of public importance which it wanted to discuss today. The terms of that matter of public importance are as follows:

The serious damage done to the public interest in Australia by the provocative nature of the Government’s industrial legislation.

We wanted to debate that matter today. Had we done so the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) who is at the table, could have taken part in the debate. At the present time we are left with an unfortunate back bencher and some other honourable members to talk about what happened in Victoria. The real issue in Victoria stems from industrial legislation and confrontation. The hate which honourable members opposite have for the Australian worker oozes out of them. As honourable members opposite know, the strike is related to an industrial matter. It is related to what sort of pay should be given to a person, whether he works under a State award or under a Federal award. The industrial action which has been taken is legitimate. The real issue, of course, is the threat of damages being claimed against unionists under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. That section will do nothing to help conciliation and arbitration in this country. The obligation and the duty of the Government is to pass legislation providing for conciliation and arbitration of disputes extending beyond the boundaries of any one State. That is the constitutional obligation of the Government.

Can honourable members opposite imagine ever settling a dispute by threatening a union with a fine of a quarter of a million dollars or of damages being imposed on any person involved in what is deemed to be a secondary boycott? That is what it is all about. Is it any wonder that the trade union movement is going to fight the Government all the way in order to have put on record the fact that that sort of legislation is punitive and discriminatory. It is the sort of legislation that will bring down every small businessman in this country. Any intelligent businessman has good industrial relations with his employees. The Government wants to adopt in the Parliament today a stance that could well affect the settlement of this dispute. But it could not care less. Honourable members opposite would be delighted to see greater confrontation.

Responsible people in the community are engaged in a conference at the present time. They are talking about terms of settlement. The Premier of Victoria has said that the writs should be withdrawn. A judge in the Industrial Court in New South Wales said yesterday that in the case of the Caltex oil refinery dispute the employers should be castigated for their confrontation tactics. Why does not the Government act on the basis of what is best for Australia? Honourable members opposite talk about the economy. In the course of this debate all that has been talked about are gaol sentences, fines and executing union leaders. I hope that goes on the record of the honourable member for Casey. The debate ought to be on the basis of looking at what happened.

We have legislation on the statute books because of what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) did when he was shadow Minister for Labor and Immigration. His policy was written by a Mr Tony Cable. Tony Cable was lent to Mr Fraser by his previous employer, Keith

Comptom Gale. That person is no longer around. The present Prime Minister circulated that policy document amongst 15 top companies in Australia, including Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. But he did not send it to any trade union or any trade union official. Why was that? The reason is that that policy was aimed at the trade union movement. It was a policy calculated to guarantee that we would achieve unity in this country by punishing and gaoling individuals. That policy was the forerunner to our current industrial legislation.

The honourable member for Casey talked about the problems in the fuel industry. Let us talk about the Government’s policy in relation to the fuel industry, which is of paramount importance at the present time. That is one significant factor in the problems being faced by that industry. The Royal Commission on Petroleum brought down its fifth report on the refining capacity in Australia. We find in evidence given that the representatives of the Total refinery suggested to the present Prime Minister that the Commonwealth Government should do something, in the national interest, about the refining capacity in Australia. That was the real issue. The Prime Minister did not give direct evidence to the Royal Commission but he wrote to the Total oil company a letter which was included in the evidence. The letter reads:

The Commonwealth Government has always been concerned to ensure, as far as possible, that Australian oil refineries had adequate capacity to meet the needs of the Australian people, that they were efficient in order to provide supplies of high quality at least cost and that they were operating in conformity with the national interest. The Government has now considered the report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum concerning an additional refinery in the Sydney area and has decided to take no action as we see the matter as primarily one for the State Government and the companies concerned.

It has wiped its hands completely of any problems in Sydney.

Mr Goodluck:

– What has that to do with it?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It has a lot to do with the present difficulties in Sydney. There are problems in refining capacity in every State. Let me refer to the issue of -

Mr Hodgman:

– You are anti-Tasmania.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Be patient. I refer to the Commission’s conclusions in respect of that report. We are talking about the national Government. We are talking about the livelihood of small businessmen. We are talking about an economy that ought to be helped. We are talking about the economy of this nation and, of course, fuel is of paramount importance when it comes to transport. I have just read that the

Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) opted out of any responsibility to help refining capacity in one of the major cities. The final recommendations of the Royal Commission at page 3 8 1 are as follows:

  1. New South Wales is deficient in refining capacity to meet principal petroleum product demands, and apparently has been in general deficit for many years.
  2. this is principally due to a shortage of crude distillation capacity in the refineries, but is compounded by their low utilisation factors.
  3. inexpensive expansion capacity remains at the AOR refinery, even following their current expansion.
  4. there is a confluence of an impending shortage of motor spirits in particular and refining capacity in general in Queensland, and a diminishing surplus in Victoria.

This is the national position and it is the problem we are facing today because throughout the nation, including New South Wales, there is a stoppage on the basis of the Government’s legislation being punitive.

Mr Hodgman:

– What rubbish.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– It is for sure. The issue, as you know, is the question of section 45D putting people into a position of penury because they happen to be trade unionists. That is the issue. The Government knows very well that section 45D was brought in by the Swanson Committee on Trade Practices. That committee acted on the basis that it would be in the best interests of the business community in respect of trade practices legislation. Bear in mind that the Swanson Committee was hand-picked by the Government’s Minister; there was no trade union representative on it, there was no consumer representative on it. It was a hand-picked elite committee that was guaranteed to bring in a decision to suit the Government. All of the Government’s legislation has been of a punitive nature. We can look at the comments made every time such legislation was introduced into this House.

We had an air traffic controllers’ strike. The House was in recess but we were all threatened with being called together to pass urgent legislation which the Government had on its books, and that affected Tasmania. On that basis we were going to be called together to pass urgent legislation in a recess. Of course, the dispute was settled. It was settled because of the influence of Mr Hawke of the Austraiian Council of Trade Unions and others. There is no risk about that. The Government can deny it, but the sequel happened. We had another problem with the Redfern Mail Exchange. The postal workers said they were not going to handle mail from the Sydney Morning Herald because of a strike that was then existing with the printers in Sydney. Because of that this Government introduced as a matter of urgency legislation which was deemed to be the stand-down of Commonwealth employees by a Minister’s decision.

Under the Commonwealth employees standdown provisions a Minister can sack any Commonwealth employee. The Government passed that legislation in the midst of a dispute at the Redfern Mail Exchange, knowing full well, of course, that the stand-down provisions under the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act had been brought into play by the postal authority. Why this sudden front here? The workers there were already under threat of stand-down, but it would have been done by a judicial process. That is what the Government is worried about- a judicial process. So you pass legislation here to provide that any employee’s services can be terminated by a Minister’s decision.

Mr Hodgman:

– Where do you stand on Tasmania?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Again you come to the question of the Industrial Relations Bureau.

Mr Hodgman:

– You do not give a damn about Tasmania.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! Interjections are out of order.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The honourable member has done nothing but interject. The most significant point is that every time there is an industrial dispute in this country the Federal Government can exacerbate it, not solve it. It is in no position now to solve this present dispute. The dispute now will be solved by the governments of New South Wales and Victoria and by the trade union officials and employers and employees acting in a responsible fashion. The problems of industrial relations have to be understood. The disparity of remuneration between Federal and State awards has to be understood. This disparity is underlying a lot of the present dispute. A real factor is that the Government’s legislation is one of confrontation and division. Every time there is a dispute the Government has not solved any part of it- not once. The most recent dreadful example was the Prime Minister’s coming here in the middle of the night to talk about the Telecom dispute. What did he say when the question was to get the parties together? The Prime Minister said this on the eve of attempts to have conferences to settle the Telecom dispute:

Let me say in the most clear and unequivocal terms that it is the view of Telecom and it is the strongest view of the Government that pay lost in these circumstances will not be regained, will not be repaid, as one of the elements in the settlement of the dispute.

You’ll get ho money back’, said the Prime Minister in a state of rage. He went on to say:

Let me say in the plainest and bluntest terms that the ATEA and its executive cannot win, and they will not win.

Of course, they won 48 hours later without the Prime Minister, because there was a judicial process under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act when an intelligent judge was able to settle the dispute. The Government has amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act where it allows what it calls ‘conscientious objection’ without any suggestion of a test of that position. There was a tramways strike in Victoria because Miss Biggs objected to joining the Tramways Union; not any other union, but that union. That held up the whole of the life of Melbourne. Miss Biggs was able to say that she had some advice from Perth. She had a quick visit to Penh for some reason. It was extraordinary because it was the second visit someone had had to Perth prior to an industrial confrontation in Melbourne. It is an extraordinary situation. It shows the intelligence of this Government to suggest that the rights of the individual must always be maintained, yet from the point of view of conscientious objection no judicial test of its validity has been put in the Government’s legislation; no union can test it. The Government would not have had any of the disputes if it had an intelligent appreciation of what is required when dealing with industrial matters.

All the top employers of Australia, all the people who understand industrial relations, do not rely on confrontation or punitive action. Their business depends on having worthwhile solidarity and goodwill between themselves and the employees. We on this side of the House stand for the trade union movement. Make no mistake about that. The trade union movement is part and parcel of our political philosophy. It is because of that that this nation can function. Bear in mind that it is because of the Government’s legislation that malfunction or nonfunction has been caused. It goes back to the Fraser philosophy of hike the Australian worker, increase his taxes, do not worry about his health insurance as he can pay for that too; if he dares to get out of line, under the industrial legislation the Government will punish him either by a gaol sentence or by attacking him personally from the point of view of damage caused. Is it any wonder that the Government is going to reap the rewards of such a stupid legislative action?

It is the problem of Victoria at the present time. It is the problem of New South Wales at the present time. It is the problem of Australia at the present time. Those problems will be solved despite the Government because the intelligence of the business community can do without the Government. The business community is fed up with the damage the Government is causing to business interests at the present time. There is a desperate need for an organised trade union movement. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act is founded on that basis. The Government is opposing wage indexation and the Prices Justification Tribunal and it is doing everything to belittle every chance that the working man has to get a fair go in this country. It is for that reason that we urge the Government to have a look at the terms of its own motion and the serious threat it causes to the whole community.

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

-This is a debate about a threat to the Australian community. I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition Mr Lionel Bowen, has had to carry on as though it was a matter of confrontation between the Government and the small group of people who are holding Australia to ransom. If you were to give the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition marks and you were able to remove marks for content it would have done rather well. It was a good lawyer’s speech about nothing. I am surprised. He normally introduces substance into what he has to say. All he could do was to run off and talk about fuel pricing policy, things that had nothing to do with the debate.

Mr Keating:

– The drones of the back bench. They let them loose once a week. Bring the drones out.

Mr SAINSBURY:

– The boy wonder of the Opposition is now trying to interject. The boy wonder is always trying to interject. Maybe he will grow up one day. In a very serious debate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has resorted to the making of stupid statements about the Government hating the Australian worker. I would say that neither the Government nor the Opposition would hate the Australian worker. I hope that we all are working towards an Australia in which everybody is allowed to go about his normal work. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition just because he belongs to the Labor Party is forced into a position of trying to justify actions by a small number of people against the interests of Australians. Why can he not stand up and tell the truth and admit that the real issue in this case is that because a very small number of people originally tried to stop an ordinary working man collecting fuel with his own transport- a member who belongs to the

Transport Workers Union of Australiaultimately the Australian transport industry has to be closed down. When that happens what will happen to Australia?

No person in this country is above the law. We have said this in this Parliament. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has often said it. That is the reason behind the legislation that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants withdrawn. Not only does he want withdrawn the court action of the Seymour oil agent just to protect this union which seems to have its own ideas about being above the law but also he wants the Government to withdraw legislation which has been conscientiously brought into this House and which has proved to be the cause of a reduction in industrial action in Australia. I invite Opposition members to look at the results since this Government came into power. Just look at the reduction in the number of man days lost through industrial action. We have stupid situations such as this at a time when the Government is working with a very fragile economy- an economy that was put into decline by a deliberate policy of inflation by the former Labor Government; yet the Labor Party is willing to assist and abet a small group of people who want to put other people out of work, who want to close down productivity and who want to prejudice the lives and livelihoods of ordinary, simple Australian workers whom they purport to represent. I believe that it is just disgusting. I would like to hear some positive alternatives from members of the Opposition. They are talking about cutting out section 45 D of the Trade Practices Act. What would happen then? What do they want to do? Do they just want to let these small groups of people do what they are doing? I was amazed to read in the Press this morning this statement by the Federal Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Mr Hodgson:

We are sick and tired of looking down the barrel of a gun provided by this Act.

He was referring to the Trade Practices Act. He said:

We have decided that enough is enough.

Let the people concerned pull the trigger of that gun and we’ll show them a real light.

Who on earth does he think he is? Does he think he is a person who can act completely above the law, who can confront an Act made in the best interests of Australians and unilaterally decide that he knows what is best for Australia? Big deal for him. What would he say if all the other Australian people decided that they would not fulfil their obligations under the law? What would happen if everybody in Melbourne wanted to put his garbage out on the street? What would he have to say about that? His stand amounts to exactly the same thing. He has decided that his small group can just flout the law, but this Government will not stand for it. The actions of the Government in the last 24 hours on this dispute demonstrate very clearly that we will not stand for it.

Australians have rights. Australians also have obligations, and those obligations are brought about by the fact the people do have rights. Australians have the right to strike; we are not taking that away. We want to take away the immunity to do things that are against the best interests of the community, things that go outside the processes of the law, things that try to put a few people above the processes of law. What do honourable members think that the union leaders will be doing when 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the Australian people are put out of work, however temporarily, by this dispute? They will be driving around in their black cars. They will be putting fuel in their tanks. They will get it from somewhere. They will be getting paid. The members of the Transport Workers Union and all the other unionists who will have work taken away from them as a flow-on from this dispute will not have petrol to put in their cars and will not have jobs.

What do the union leaders care? They live in the big cities anyway. What do they care about the people in isolated areas, people who need fuel for their very livelihood, people who have to harvest the wheat, people who have to carry stores to country towns? What do the union leaders care about those sections of Australia? They care nothing. They are prepared to use a dispute involving, as I said, a working man who decides that he wants to collect his petrol in a certain fashion, as a trigger to set off an operation that will put many Australians out of work.

The Commonwealth, of course, is particularly circumscribed in industrial legislation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is accurate when he says that there is very little that the Commonwealth can do in the democratic system that we have if the Australian people want to stand up and in a widespread way revolt against any sort of lack of fair play. But we are not talking about any lack of fair play here. The Government can act only through a small number of devices such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. This is why the question of deregistration is a very important one at the present time. The Government can act only through legislation such as the Trade Practices Act, which is a genuine attempt to stop blackmail, to prevent people who are really scabbing on the workers from stopping others going to work. All that the Federal Government can do is to urge. That is why I believe that a debate such as this is so important. It is not a debate in confrontation with the union movement. It is a debate brought on by Government members because we believe that the Australian people need to be urged to act in their own best interests and absolutely go against the actions of a small number of unionists who are acting against them.

As I said, no one in a democracy can combat widespread revolt. We need an Australian people who are prepared to work together. We do not get that support from the Opposition, and certainly that has been shown in this debate and in every other debate on industrial matters. Honourable members opposite are not prepared to stand up for the Australian working people, who deserve a fair go. They do not like to read the results of independent surveys such as the recent one which showed that, despite the fact that union leaders want as many pay rises as they can possibly get against all sorts of logic, most unionists are prepared to forego pay rises if it will bring down the rate of price increases. They read these things but they decide to put them in the wastepaper bins. They listen only to the doctrinaire people who set up these stupid policies of the Australian Labor Party so many years ago.

Members of the Opposition should talk to the taxi drivers who went to Melbourne last night in large numbers and confronted the Transport Workers Union. These taxi drivers have wives and kids to feed. They want to go to work. They do not want to be caught up in a stupid dispute, involving, on the one hand, a single operator, a person who has acted within the law, and on the other hand, a small group of unionists who are not prepared to act within the law.

This is a debate about a threat to our community. It is a debate about the fact that the transport industry affects the whole of the community because productivity flows from it. Our very fragile economy, which is picking up because of strong Government policies, is at risk because of strikes like this- and I suspect that the union movement knows it. I suspect that the control of the unions over the fuel situation as exercised by members of the Seamens Union of Australia, the refinery workers, the transport workers, and the clerks in the industry- they have all been going on strike- is, as the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has so often said, a conspiracy. There are plenty of people outside who also believe this. We can ill afford small groups of people luxuriating in their own pettiness putting stress on the nation as a whole, on consumers and on the working people of Australia. We know that and the people overseas who trade with us also know that.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– Up to this time this debate has been characterised by the absence of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) participating in it and giving the House the benefit of his knowledge and wisdom. It has been characterised by the traditional approach of back bench members of the Liberal Party, who have presented an argument based on error, untruths and hypocrisy with all sorts of pious hypocritical assertions based essentially not on the facts of the dispute in the fuel industry but on their prejudices and upon their own lack of knowledge of the trade union movement and more importantly their own lack of knowledge of industrial relations. Let us deal with the facts of this situation because it is time that they were produced and put to this House. One of the central ingredients in this industrial dispute is that following the decision in the Moore v. Doyle case the transport workers in Victoria operate under two awards. It would be interesting to know the view of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on that because it is one of the biggest single problems bedevilling industrial relations in this nation. What is the result of that and how does it affect this situation? It affects it in a very fundamental way. It means that oil tanker drivers operating under a federal award get a higher rate of pay than drivers operating under a State award.

What are the facts of this case? It is a matter of great regret to me that the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury) not once referred to the facts. Industrial disputes do not just blow up overnight. The average tanker driver, the average transport worker, does not want to be involved in an industrial stoppage prior to Christmas. He has the same obligations as every other citizen in the community. He wants to avoid a stoppage if he can.

Mr Sainsbury:

– Why don’t you let them decide individually.

Mr HOLDING:

– The problem with the honourable gentleman is that he suffers from political halitosis. Every time he opens his mouth one can see his prejudices- and they are vile. How did this situation occur? If the honourable gentlemen opposite had done their homework they would have found that when Mr Gorman was invited to open a depot which had been closed for some five months and to which oil was being delivered by tanker drivers who were operating under a federal award he was told by Esso Australia Limited that it believed that the Transport Workers Union would not oppose his use of his own trucks. My investigations show that that is true. Unfortunately, what was not pointed out to Mr Gorman was that, whatever trucks he was using, the Transport Workers Union would expect Mr Gorman to continue what had become the practice in the industry and pay his men the federal award. There was no argument about the use of his own men. There never was any argument about that. The argument was about whether they should be paid under the federal award. From the point of view of the union

Mr Goodluck:

– He paid them under the State award because it was cheaper.

Mr HOLDING:

– That is right. I am delighted with the honourable gentleman’s logic. Let us just try to analyse rationally the ingredients of this important industrial dispute. From the point of view of the TWU this work was being offered at lower wages than had previously applied. It is as simple as that. Is it remarkable for a trade union secretary who finds himself in that situation to say: ‘You can do the work if you want to but it must be done under the terms of the federal award’? That is the central ingredient of this dispute. Mr Gorman said that he would operate under the provisions of the State award. What then occurred, of course, was the imposition of a black ban. If the honourable member for Franklin knew anything about industrial relations he would know that it is common right throughout industry for black bans to be applied. I would think that in the course of any one week many dozens of black bans would be imposed at various levels. That, of course, creates the ingredients for an industrial dispute which is then able to go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to be resolved. There is nothing new about that. I think that this matter could have been resolved at that stage because the differences between the parties are not differences between city workers and country workers, as has been suggested. It is perfectly true that all the men involved are members of the one union. It is essentially an argument about maintaining the provisions of a federal award in a situation in which a federal award had previously maintained. They are the facts.

What complicated what was essentially a narrow, localised industrial dispute which had all the ingredients to make it easily able to be settled, taking into account the advice of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, was the fact that writs were issued under the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Any employer knows, as a result of statements made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and of warnings issued in this House, that if writs are issued which threaten unions with penalties of $250,000 and which threaten decent Australian unionists with having their houses taken away from them they will produce a massive confrontation. That has occurred. Yet honourable gentlemen opposite have said that it is a terrible thing for the union to suggest that the writs ought to be withdrawn. Mr Hodgson has made his position perfectly clear. He has indicated that if the writs are withdrawn the matter can be then settled through the due process of negotiation. Of course, in the minds of honourable gentlemen opposite, Mr Hodgson’s suggestion is equivalent to a mortal sin. What a terrible thing it is for Mr Hodgson to say that these writs ought to be withdrawn as a condition precedent to the settling of an industrial dispute!

In this morning’s Australian Financial Review it is reported that the Premier of Victoria, in an endeavour to get this dispute settled, has called the parties into conference. The report states:

  1. . Mr Hamer would be attempting to have the writs withdrawn so that the strike could end immediately, leaving the question of the TWU ban on Mr Gorman’s tankers to be resolved during further discussions.

That is the situation. The Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria is acting with a little more responsibility than the two backward back bench members we have heard today and with a little more responsibility than the silent Minister who slinks out of the House and does not get involved in this matter of pressing industrial relations. The Premier of Victoria is acting in a way which I commend because it seems to me to be pretty reasonable and pretty intelligent. This dispute can be over in 24 hours. It can be over if Mr Gorman says: ‘I withdraw the writs’. The matter would then go through the normal process of conciliation and arbitration. The question of where the conspiracy lies is an interesting one. There are people in this community who cannot wait -

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Are you for or against the strike?

Mr HOLDING:

– There are people in this community who are almost as unintelligent as the honourable member for Hotham.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Are you for or against the strike?

Mr HOLDING:

– I am for every working man, every citizen in this community, having the same right as the honourable gentleman opposite to defend his working conditions. If the honourable gentleman were paid for results, he would be the biggest dole bludger in the Commonwealth. Let the facts rest as they are.

Mr Sainsbury:

– You were the first ones to use that word in this House.

Mr HOLDING:

– It was invented in the thinktanks of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party invented it and it can wear it. If it wants to walk away from it, it can do so. This dispute can be ended within 24 hours but it will not be ended in terms of the nonsense that has been spoken in this House. The ingredients are there. The dispute can be settled. In the interests of this nation it ought to be settled.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

page 2740

AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) I move pursuant to notice:

That this Bill be referred to a legislation committee for report by 23 November 1978.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2740

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr John Brown had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Bill takes no account of the Prime Minister’s 1977 election promise to provide through the Primary Industry Bank long term credit at concessional interest rates’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Hon. Ian Robinson)- I call the honourable member for Grey.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-There are a few comments I would like to add -

Mr Braithwaite:

– I rise to a point of order. I thought that I was to resume my speech. I still have some seven minutes left in which to speak.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– With the concurrence of the House I will call the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I regret that no indication was given to me that the honourable member for Dawson had not completed his speech when the debate was interrupted on Thursday night.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your ruling. When the debate was interrupted on Thursday night I was speaking about the difficulty in Australia of financing not only rural industry but also small business and the small degree of risk that lenders are prepared to take. I hope that the Primary Industry Bank of Australia might take this aspect into consideration when it is looking at applications for refinancing. Certainly the Primary Industry Bank is just one avenue for supplementing rural finance. Bodies sponsored by State and Federal governments already render assistance to rural industries by way of rural reconstruction, drought loans, Federal legislation to provide grants to beef producers and low interest loans in respect of brigalow areas.

Some of us had a discussion last Monday with the management and some senior officials of the Primary Industry Bank. We were told that the Primary Industry Bank can be of such service within the rural community that the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia has indicated that it would like to become a participant and that insurance companies and pastoral houses have expressed interest. I hope that in time the trading banks, the Commonwealth Development Bank, the insurance companies and the pastoral houses will as a group take an interest in this lending authority and bring their resources to bear. To assist such a step would go a long way towards solving some of the problems of rural finance.

It has been indicated that rates of interest of 10 per cent and 12 per cent will be applied by the banks concerned. The interest on money from the Primary Industry Bank to these other lending authorities is at a Vh per cent differential. I do not think many people appreciate that the Primary Industry Bank will advance money at %Vi per cent. The applying banks will have to take account of the costs of processing and maintaining loans and also making sure that the funds are available on long term finance. That is the way in which the Bank will operate.

In the remaining five minutes I would like to refer to the situation in New Zealand which I believe will be of interest to honourable members. New Zealand has had 40 years experience in financing rural industries through the Rural Banking and Finance Corporation. In many ways the Corporation is comparable to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. The Australian bank operates on similar lines. Although the rate of interest to the rural producer is lower in New Zealand it is not as concessional as it might appear in the first instance. New Zealand interest rates traditionally have been below Australian interest rates. However, as I said, the situation in New Zealand is practically the same as that in Australia. I have looked at the balance sheet of the Corporation for the last two years up to 3 1 March 1978. In 1977 the Corporation funded 7,524 applications for a total amount of $ 154m. For the year ended 31 March 1978 it funded 1 1,708 applications for a total of $228m. Anyone who is debating or who has an interest in this Bill will see that the amount to be offered by the Primary Industry Bank in the first 12 months of its operation, taking into consideration the vastness of Australia and our reliance upon a greater number of rural industries, will not go anywhere near the initial amount that will be applied for in the market place. However, I think we must realise that New Zealand started its scheme 40 years ago. We must look at this from the point of view that the Primary Industry Bank will now commence operation and that with the support of every person and every institution in Australia interested in rural industries we will in time- I do not suggest it will take 40 years- be able to reach the stage where we will have enough finance to fund the loans that will be required. There will be disappointment initially but I believe that this objective will be achieved.

The Rural Banking and Finance Corporation has put some emphasis on the fishing industry which is now even more important because of the 200-mile fishing limit. I believe that our fishing industry could immediately receive loans through the Primary Industry Bank. Some suburban people believe that country areas are being subsidised up to the hilt. I deny such a suggestion. One should look at the situation in New Zealand. Not only do rural producers in that country have the benefit of rural finance but they also can be granted many subsidies in respect of export markets. In fact, I know that one company in New Zealand made a profit of some $1 lm but did not pay one cent in taxation. One can imagine the effect that has on the price of its goods which are flowing into Australia at the moment. Australians, by that comparison, are not over-subsidised. Manufacturing industries in the south of this continent receive a minute amount of protection or subsidisation in comparison with their New Zealand counterparts. Perhaps we can encourage the Government and the States to look further and to assist other areas of rural industry which are in need in the same way as it has assisted rural industry with this legislation. We should have a very close look at the subsidies and the level of protection afforded to southern manufacturing industries so that they can compete with importers. Therefore I refute fully the suggestion that primary industry in this country is being over-subsidised.

The New Zealand situation is almost selfperpetuating. I believe that last year the New Zealand Government paid out only $6m because of the loan repayments that were received. This is more or less a round robin exercise. If interest rates on loans are to be kept at the present level the Commonwealth must continue to look to its own input and the value of that input. The income equalisation deposits are limited to approximately $30m and what is required from the Commonwealth in the future will not be filled from that source. Therefore the Commonwealth also must look at this aspect of further low cost funds from time to time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-The amendment moved by the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), which I seconded, states:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Bill takes no account of the Prime Minister’s 1977 election promise to provide through the Primary Industry Bank long term credit at concessional interest rates’.

The amendment mentions the promise that was broken by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). This Bill will allow the Government to use income equalisation deposits to provide funding for the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. I think the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) mentioned some of the problems involved, including the fact that probably insufficient finance has been provided to cover the needs of this Bank. As a point of interest, depositors of income equalisation deposits receive 5 per cent interest. The anomaly is that they can then borrow their money back at either 10 per cent for up to $100,000 or 12 per cent for over that amount. In referring to the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Parramatta who referred to the political exercise that has been carried out with this legislation, I think it would pay us to retrace its steps.

Prior to the 1975 election the Prime Minister stated that he would introduce a rural industry bank. In 1977 when he decided to go to the people 12 months before time, after saying that he believed that the Government would have three years in which to right matters in Australia, he gave another promise because the Government had not introduced the bank in the two years in which it had already been in office. He said that it would introduce legislation to provide a bank that would offer concessional rates of interest. That was to be called the Rural Industry Bank of Australia. Surely it would have involved only common sense at that time to realise that already there was a Rural Bank of New South Wales and a Rural Industry Bank in Western Australia. To call the new bank a rural bank was very confusing. Legislation was pushed through this Parliament just prior to the 1977 election in which a lot of fs were not crossed and i’s not dotted. Incidentally, prior to that election the Prime Minister said that finance would be provided to rural producers at concessional rates of interest. We know how concessional those rates of interest are. The Government had done nothing in two years to honour its 1975 promise. When it introduced legislation it was slipshod and did not contain what was needed to meet the situation.

Following the return of the Government in 1977 it suddenly woke up to some of the matters that were wrong with this Bank. Firstly, the name was wrong because of its confusion with the other two banks that I have mentioned. The Government decided to call the new bank the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. Other alterations were made, for example, the way in which the Bank would be controlled. Further legislation was introduced to set up the controlling body to run the Bank. It is quite obvious that, under pressure from the private banks, control was handed over to those private bank interests. Of the 12 people on the Bank’s board, eight come from the banks. Of those eight people the majority come from the private banks. The Government has virtually handed the Bank over to private interests. Concessional rates of interest were definitely promised prior to the 1977 election. I know how people in rural organisations were shocked when the rates were announced. They had been led to believe that when the words ‘concessional rates of interest’ had been used they meant genuine concessional rates of interest. I do not think anyone could say that 10 per cent and 12 per cent- or 10V6 per cent and 2Vi per cent, as they were originally- are concessional rates of interest. The farming organisations tried to find out from the Government what the rates would be. They could not find out. Last June I asked the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) who was the Acting Prime Minister at the time a question about the rates of interest. In the final part of his answer he stated:

However, the Government has implied and suggested from the beginning that it would hope that the Primary Industry Bank of Australia would make available long term funds at interest rates set at approximately the same level as for overdraft accommodation on similar amounts of money.

That was the first time that an indication was given as to what those rates of interest would be. I have heard honourable members from the other side say how the rural organisations have welcomed this Bank. Quite a few rural organisations are in my electorate and I have spoken at some of their meetings. I remember attending a particular meeting where I discussed the question of the interest rates of the Primary Industry Bank. The president of that organisation followed me and backed up everything I said. Although honourable members opposite say that primary industry organisations have accepted this Bank, that certainly has not been indicated to me. They look forward to gaining the finance but not at the interest rates which were promised to be concessional but which certainly have not finished up being concessional by any stretch of the imagination. Although the Government last week announced that the interest rates would drop by 0.S per cent, some other interest rates also dropped. So the new rates could not be called concessional. One honourable member from the other side said that the Government did not promise low rates of interest; all it promised were concessional rates of interest. I think that overdraft rates are not concessional rates of interest.

Of course the alteration that took place put the whole control of the Bank into the hands of the private banks. The rural producer cannot go directly to the Primary Industry Bank; he must work through existing organisations. When one looks at the whole matter one wonders just what advantage for them there is in the Bank. Other areas of finance probably could have been expanded to allow the lending of money by existing interests. I have some brochures here. One is from a bank and deals with funds provided to primary producers. It states that the bank makes loans to rural industry for purchase and development of farm properties; farm improvements; purchase of plant; the holding together of a farming enterprise upon the death of a farm proprietor; repayment of unsuitable short-term private mortgage debts and similar obligations.

It goes on to refer to the fishing industry and states that the bank makes loans for: purchase and construction of or improvement to fishing vessels; purchase of gear and equipment; repayment of debt on fishing vessels arranged on unsuitable terms.

In referring to the forestry industry, it states that loans are made available for development which will lead to increased production or improved efficiency.

It then goes on to talk about business undertakings. That brochure comes from the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia. If we compare it with the brochure that is supplied by the Primary Industry Bank, we find that a lot of the purposes for which loans are made by the Primary Industry Bank could have been accommodated by the Development Bank. I understand that the Development Bank at the time was hotly opposed to the establishment of the Primary Industry Bank because it would just create another banking institution. The Development Bank is mainly a rural industry bank because I understand that 74 per cent of its loans are made to rural producers. By extending its charter so that it could fulfil the purposes which the Primary Industry Bank now purports to do, the Commonwealth Development Bank could have been used to carry out that job.

I do not intend to take up all of my time. I fully support the member for Parramatta ‘s amendment. I feel that a political exercise has been carried out throughout the introduction of the Primary Industry Bank. A promise was loosely given in 197S. Legislation was rushed through this House to give effect to that promise in 1977. The legislation was drafted very loosely and was full of loopholes. Further legislation was introduced in May of this year which tried to close some of those loopholes. The Primary Industry Bank is not a primary industry bank at all; it is a bankers’ bank. It has no advantage in that the farmer cannot borrow directly from the

Bank; he has to go through his normal institution. In my opinion the amendment which con.demns the Government for the political manoeuvring that took place should be supported. Whilst the Opposition does not intend to oppose the Bill, it draws attention to all the political machinations that went on in the establishment of this bureaucratic organisation.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2744

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 October, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The purpose of this Bill, the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill (No. 2) 1978, is to authorise that Commonwealth guarantees be made in respect of overseas borrowings by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd to enable the purchase of its tenth Boeing 727-200 passenger aircraft. The guarantees are to be limited to $US 11.12m or its equivalent, which represents 80 per cent of the estimated total cost of the aircraft and its associated equipment. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in his second reading speech touched on a range of issues, including the recent review of international civil aviation policy. I want first to speak on several aspects of domestic aviation policy before returning to the Government’s proposals for cheaper international air fares. Whilst we agree with the Minister’s comment that Australia’s airlines are making a significant contribution to the development and welfare of our nation and have an air safety record equal to the world’s best, there are fundamental differences between the approach of the Opposition to civil aviation and the approach of the Government.

Firstly, the Opposition believes in a frank and open approach to the development and administration of Australia’s aviation policy. If the public is to have the best possible air services this country can provide and if air travellers are not to continue to be disadvantaged in terms of the price and frequency of air services, there has to be an end to the private club of bureaucrats and air service operators which determines air fares and schedule frequencies in this country. Secondly, consumers must be given a role in the decision making procedures of aviation policy. Thirdly, there should be a process of public examination to authorise increases in domestic air fares.

Since December 1975 we have seen a succession of secret inquiries into Australia ‘s aviation industry. The Bland review committee examined the two government airlines, TransAustralia Airlines and Qantas, and the Hewitt committee investigated the cost recovery program in aviation. Despite industry pressure, neither committee’s report was made public. The reports have not been published because both were highly critical of the performance of the air operations divisions of the Department of Transport. Later, a committee chaired by Sir James McNeill of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, inquired into the operations of the Government transport enterprises, including TAA and Qantas. Again its report was pigeonholed. An inter-departmental committee investigated the provision of aerial services in the Northern Territory. Its report also was kept privy to the Minister, even though the Chairman of Directors of Connair Pty Ltd, a company which was the major subject of investigation, was able to quote extracts from the report to a public meeting in Darwin. Recently the Government has presented to the public two reports on domestic air transport and one on international civil aviation. It has called for another review of domestic general aviation services.

The separation of domestic air transport from international aviation and the secrecy with which the Government has shrouded its inquiries into Australia’s transport industry are symbolic of the Government’s chaotic and ad hoc approach to aviation matters generally. Originally the Minister refused to give an undertaking that the reports of the reviews of domestic and international civil aviation would be released, and it was only mounting public hostility about airline fares and services that forced him to release part of the reports. Yet he still refuses to release the submissions made to the reviews on the spurious grounds that they contain confidential commercial information. There would be little difficulty in eliminating those sections of the submissions that fall within that classification. Apparently there has also been an investigation into the operations of the airports division of the Department, the report of which is critical of the Department’s performance and competence. That report also has not been released, and it was obvious from the Minister’s answer at Question Time last Thursday that he was unaware of the inquiry and the results of that review. Might I say that the report of that inquiry trenchantly criticised the management, performance, and under-utilisation of qualified personnel within those branches of the Department. Earlier this year serious public concern developed at the deteriorating standards of air safety in Australia. In the face of documented evidence produced to the contrary, the Minister sought to deny that air safety was a problem. Now it seems that it too was the subject of further investigation within the Department of Transport. On an earlier occasion I welcomed that examination of the subject because of the view of the Opposition was that the serious nature of the matter was above the politics of this chamber. I still make the point that despite the Minister’s denials earlier in the year, at least the Department and the Minister are now looking at the subject, I hope in a proper way.

In short, aviation policy in Australia is in a shambles. It is in a shambles because of the bungling and the incompetence of the Minister for Transport and because, I believe, at times he has not been provided by his Department with completely factual information. The uncertainty, the public anxiety, the chaos and confusion surrounding air travel could all have been avoided if, as the Opposition has repeatedly contended, there had been one all-embracing public review of aviation policy. The truth would have been ventilated and the interests of Austraiian air travellers better served. No government today would support a proposal that the various consumer affairs tribunals be abolished or that consumer protection laws be repealed. Yet this Government has consistently rejected the proposal that there is a role for consumer participation in aviation. In spite of the Government’s opposition to the Prices Justification Tribunal and the various attacks it has made on the role and function of the PJT, it has not been so politically foolish as to abolish it completely. In the same way there is a need for public justification procedures for commodity price increases sought from the PJT, so there is a need to satisfy the public that air fare increases sought by the airlines are warranted, especially when we consider that the domestic airline industry has an annual turnover approaching $1 billion.

Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Transport Industries occupy a privileged position in civil aviation under the terms of the two-airlines agreement. Accordingly, it is essential that a community which already views domestic air fares as being unnecessarily high and riddled with anomalies should have the opportunity publicly to scrutinise proposed fare levels. This should include examination not only of proposed fare increases but also of basic fare structures. The Bill before us is to provide a Commonwealth guarantee to Ansett Transport Industries to borrow $US1 1.12m abroad. Yet it is astonishing that the Minister in his second reading speech said not one word about the recent financial position or operating results of either TAA or Ansett; not one word about capital invested, profitability, level of borrowings, or funds available; not one word on liquidity levels, sales, profit ratios or results of airline-related activities. There is not even a hint of the controversial acquisition by each airline of car rental companies, despite the fact that the Avis acquisition was challenged by the Trade Practices Commission and despite the continuing public controversy over the tenders called for airport car rentals concessions by the Government recently and what I understand are the latest moves to amend that tender.

The Minister made the important observation that whereas Ansett needs to borrow abroad, Trans-Australian Airlines will be able to finance the purchase of its equivalent aircraft from internally generated resources. The Parliament and the public should be given a full explanation of why this is so. How is it that one airline needs to borrow money abroad with public guarantee, while the other, apparently, is in a strong liquid position. I make the point that each airline has recently acquired, or is in the process of acquiring, car rental companies. This situation only reinforces the need for public justification procedures when fare increases are sought. It is obvious that the Department of Transport does not have an appreciation of the detailed assetliability ratios and the liquidity position of the airlines. If it had made an analysis of the ratios and the liquidity position of the airlines, relevant comments would have been written into the Minister’s speech.

The clear lack of investigation and analysis of the airlines’ financial positions by the Department of Transport appears more serious when we refer to clause 6 of the Bill. We should realise that the Minister referred to in clause 6 is the Treasurer as distinct from the Minister for Transport, but as I will point out later, the Minister for Transport has equivalent powers under the Air Navigation Regulations, I think Regulation 106 is the relevant one. Clause 6 of the Bill states:

For the purpose of the protection of the financial interests of the Commonwealth, the Treasurer shall not give a guarantee under section S in respect of a borrowing unless-

the Treasurer is satisfied that the terms and conditions of the borrowing are reasonable;

Paragraph (e) of clause 6 states: undertakings to the satisfaction of the Treasurer are given that, so long as the amount borrowed, or any interest on that amount, remains unpaid-

  1. officers of the Australian Public Service will have full access at all reasonable times to the financial accounts of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Proprietary Limited when authorised in writing by the Minister for that purpose;

Paragraph (f), the blanket provision, states: such other conditions as the Treasurer thinks necessary are fulfilled.

It is the Minister’s responsibility to explain to the Parliament why essential financial information has not been provided. It is also his responsibility to explain why Trans-Australia Airlines has sufficient liquidity to finance its purchase in what we are told are times of economic hardship for the airlines, when there has been a reduction in the rate of airline traffic growth and when it has been put to the public that it is necessary to increase domestic air fares. It is up to the Minister in these circumstances to explain why it is necessary for one airline to borrow abroad, to incur the costs of borrowing and the risks of changes in the exchange rate and why the other airline is able to make major equipment purchases from internally generated resources.

The Melbourne Age on 28 September 1978 reported that Ansett Transport Industries Ltd made a record profit of $ 18.35m. My understanding is that in the financial year recently concluded Trans-Australia Airlines had a better financial result than in the previous year. However, on that same day the Sydney Morning Herald carried a front page headline ‘Ansett says fare rise is inevitable’. One month later, major newspapers featured a story which stated that Trans-Australia Airlines wished to withdraw from country air services in Queensland. In light of these reports, is it any wonder that the public and the media think that there is something wrong with domestic air fare structures in this country? Is it any wonder that they think the whole system is anomalous and that they are not given a fair go? On the one hand, the airlines report record profits and the newspapers report that fare rises are inevitable. A few weeks later it is reported that services are to be withdrawn from Queensland. Consideration should be given by the Government and by the Minister to the Minister’s responsibilities under the Air Navigation Regulations to ensure that services are provided where they are needed. If there are economic circumstances that justify some diversion from that position, it is the Minister’s responsibility and the Government’s responsibility to put those facts before the public. Again, as it is the Minister’s personal responsibility under the Regulations to approve increases in air fares, he should tell the Parliament what is happening in the financial affairs of Australia’s two major domestic airlines. He has access to the relevant information under his regulatory powers.

On an earlier occasion I questioned the quality of fare justification inquiries by the Department of Transport. Following this Government’s cutbacks and reduced staff ceilings, I do not believe that the Department of Transport has sufficient accounting personnel who have detailed knowledge of commercial operations in the private sector to examine thoroughly and adequately the financial data provided by airlines when fare rises are sought, particularly in the very tight time scale that is provided to the Department. I say that in fairness to the Department. It is up to the Government and the Minister personally to tell us something about the depth of that examination procedure. Something on this subject should have been written into the Minister’s comments. As I said earlier, I do not believe that an intensive study of a basic fare structure has been made since the change of government in 1975. We have noticed that in just over two years domestic air fares in this country have risen as a direct result of this Government’s administration and policies by 27 per cent in cumulative terms. The return economy fare between Sydney and Perth now costs $447.60. Between Melbourne and Cairns the return economy fare is $391.20 and between Brisbane and Hobart it is $292.40. Clearly, the Government’s policy is to price air travel so high that it is beyond the reach of the vast majority of Australians and will be confined to the privileged sectors of the Australian community.

The only result of the Government’s tinkering and toying with reductions in domestic airfares has been the stand by and adherance purchase excursion fares systems of ticket purchase. Whilst both are welcome, they are only superficial attempts to defuse criticism of the Government’s high air fare policy. Stand-by fares are, in effect, a sop to criticism of the Government’s policy and they are no substitute for more realistic fares that embrace certainty of travel. The point to be made at the conclusion of the initial trial period is that the price of fares has risen by 16% per cent. It is rather interesting to note that it has been reported: ‘Stand-by fares to be extended’, when really the headline ought to have been: Stand-by fares increased by one-sixth’. I can only try to envisage the number of stand-by fares that are likely to be available to Australians over the Christmas holiday period.

I emphasise the point that stand-by fares provide no certainty of travel. What has to be developed is a regime of air fares that widens access to air travel. How do we raise load factors generally? How do we get the cost of the industry down? How do we get better utilisation of the capital invested in the industry? I have touched on these points before. I come back to the point that I was making earlier in my speech: Why is it that one airline has to borrow abroad and another can fund a major equipment purchase from its own resources? Surely there is a component in that borrowing abroad- in the exchange rate variation and interest charge involved- that must be added into the fare structure as a whole? That cost has to be borne by domestic air travellers.

That is the kind of information that the public and the Parliament need to know. I do not have it. I would like to have it. 1 stress that point to the Minister. That is the kind of information that needs to be brought before the Parliament. Is there justification for borrowing abroad? Is there a better utilisation that could be made of the capital investment of the airlines or is the position, as has been put to me from time to time, that it is not difficult to create a position in one set of accounts to show a liquidity defficiency that justifies borrowing abroad with public guarantee? They are the points that have to be answered by the Minister and the Government.

Our air fare structures in Australia have reached such absurd levels that, as some Western Australians have recently pointed out, in the near future it may well be cheaper to fly from Perth to Sydney via London than it will be to fly from Perth to Sydney direct. Some Government members may laugh at that but some people are seriously contemplating travelling that route. The problem is that this Government is committed to an airline policy that was designed for the needs and aspirations of an earlier generation. In contrast, the Opposition is committed to the objective of making air travel as accessible as possible to as wide a range of the Australian community as possible.

In the few minutes remaining to me I wish to deal with our international civil aviation policy. Public anxiety, confusion and frustration at the level of international air fares have been brought about by the Government’s dishonesty and its misrepresentation of the issues involved. The Minister deliberately and repeatedly encouraged the public to believe that Laker Airways would soon be operating to Australia. He did so with the knowledge that Laker Airways had to receive the approval of the United Kingdom Government to fly to Australia before meaningful consideration could be given to any submission from Laker and that Laker did not have the United Kingdom Government’s approval to operate to Australia and was not likely to receive such approval.

The distinguishing feature of the Government’s international civil aviation policy to date has been its complete failure to reduce international air fares and the thwarting of each Australian’s right to lower international travel costs. After 18 months of procrastination, stalling and obsessional secrecy we are still waiting not merely for the introduction of reduced fares on the Kangaroo route but for an announcement as to when the fares will be reduced. What has not been pointed out to date is what will be the effect of the Government’s proposals under the suggested new fares. Current off-peak, shoulder and peak excursion fares for Sydney to London and return of $ 1,000, $ 1 ,200 and $ 1 ,300 respectively are to disappear. In other words, immediate purchase excursion fares will disappear under the new proposals. There will be one immediate purchase economy fare of $1,450 to operate all year round. This will mean significant fare increases for people who have to travel on an immediate purchase basis with minimum and maximum stay conditions.

Under the current system of immediate purchase with a minimum stay of 2 1 days and a maximum stay of 270 days, people travelling from Sydney to London pay $1,000 return if they travel in the off-peak months of February, October and November. Under the proposed fare regime they will pay $1,450- a jump of $450. People travelling from Sydney to London in the shoulder months of January, March, August and September will be paying $250 more than the current fare of $1,200 return. In the peak months of April, May, June and July the increase will be $150.

In his speech on 1 1 October the Minister compared the one-way excursion fare of $695 with his proposals for the new advance purchase excursion fare. But under the Government’s proposed system this fare is to be eliminated, and the single economy fare of $725 one-way is to operate.

Mr Nixon:

– I think you are in for a slight shock, actually.

Mr MORRIS:

– My remarks relate to what was contained in the Minister’s statement. I do not know whether it has been changed. Has the statement been changed?

Mr Nixon:

– No. That is the basis of some of the fares under negotiation. It is not the complete range of fares under negotiation with the airlines.

Mr MORRIS:

-I am happy to hear what the Minister has said. I hope he is able to shock me. We want to see fares brought down to as low a level as possible. My comments are based upon the Minister’s statement. It may be that he has revised that statement. I will be happy to hear him say so later in his reply. As I said, we want to see air fares brought to as low a level as possible. If that is what the Minister is going to tell us I will be happy to hear it; I will welcome it.

These increases will be especially hard on those people who have to travel overseas suddenly to visit friends or relatives in the event of bereavement or illness. This applies particularly to former European nationals now resident in Australia. The much publicised fare of $568 for Sydney to London and return is to be available for only three months of the year- October, November and February- and then with a prepayment of 45 days in advance. The Australians to benefit from this fare will be those who can plan and pay for their travel 45 days in advance and who will be willing to travel to London during the European winter.

On the Pacific scene this week’s AustraliaUnited States negotiations provide the opportunity for a substantial reduction in AustraliaUnited States air fares. The tourist potential offered to Australia by lowered air fares should be a primary consideration in the talks. Expanded access to United States cities for Qantas Airways Ltd could increase tourist traffic to Australia and raise the airline’s load factors. If as has been mooted- I suspect that the stories have come from within the Government’s own organised leak machine- a second United States airline is to be granted access to Australia for an experimental period precise guidelines must be established to permit its operations. My understanding of the leaks coming from the Government side is that a second US operator is only contemplated at this stage.

It would be intolerable if Australians were to be subjected to the same confusion and inaction on Pacific air fares as has occurred on AustraliaUnited Kingdom air fares. The strong possibility now is that, unless resolution is reached soon with the United States, Australia will miss the additional tourist traffic out of the United States generated as fares to other south-west Pacific destinations are lowered. Obstinacy and prevarication by the Minister for Transport on Pacific air fares will likewise continue to penalise Australians who wish to visit the American continent. Ridicule and intimidation- irrespective of which side of the Pacific they come from- are no substitute for sensible negotiation, even if it is the traditional Country Party style of doing things.

In conclusion, the Minister for Transport has a responsibility to see that the benefits of lower international air fares are made available to Australians as soon as possible. He will assist public understanding of the complexities involved in negotiating the necessary new bilateral aviation agreements by being candid, honest and straightforward with the public on the issues involved. As indicated earlier, I am sure the Australian public will appreciate any later information the Minister can give us. The Opposition believes there is a substantial capacity for reductions in international air fares, that those reductions will be to the overall benefit of the community and that they could have and would have been available earlier if the issues involved had been handled by the Government in a more proper and responsible manner. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-The Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill (No. 2) has one prime purpose and that is to guarantee adherence raising of $1 1.21m by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd to buy a new 727-200 200 series aircraft. However, the contribution to the debate this afternoon of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) has certainly ranged over fields a lot broader than the particular confines of the Bill. It is probably worth debating with him some of the aspects that he has raised. I was interested to hear his expressed concern about the high cost of domestic air fares in Australia. I think that most members of this House share this concern.

I think it is true to say that over the years the two-airline agreement has brought both major domestic carriers into a rather cocoon-like arrangement whereby a lot of the competition in the airline industry has been cut out. Perhaps with the reviews that are being conducted and the initiatives that are being taken we may see some opening up of competition in those areas. It is true to say that the high level of domestic air fares in Australia compares with the high air fares elsewhere in the world. In fact, some people are paying higher fares. I look particularly at the intra-Europe fares, which on paper are higher than ours. Certainly the straight domestic fares in the United States are higher than ours. But very few people in the countries involved pay a scheduled fare. We in this country have had no opportunity in the past to take advantage of excursion fares domestically or, indeed, any special fares.

The other day the air fare between England and Scandinavia was suddenly dropped to £49 sterling whereas previously it had been £179 sterling. That apparently was the last bastion of the high air fare regime in Europe. Scandinavia was about the only place that did not have a special arrangement with England for special low fares. We have not had that opportunity in Australia. We are one of the few developed nations that have not had access to these cheaper fares internally.

It is an amazing situation when an airline like Pan American Airways can sell a roundtheworld air fare for a little over $1,000. A constituent of mine brought this matter to my attention the other day and I have written to the Minsiter for Transport (Mr Nixon) about it. That fare entitled him to go from city to city through the various countries, making stopovers wherever he wanted to go. He decided he would return through Perth and stop over there. He thought also he would like to go to Adelaide and then fly back to Brisbane. He left the aircraft at Perth and then found that he was up for another $500 or $600 because Australia was the only country he visited in which that particular type of ticket did not apply. That is a case involving an Australian, but many world travellers have this same problem. It is to these areas that I think we must look if we are to open up more the whole range of domestic air fares so that we can make Australia an attractive place to which people can come, where tourists are encouraged to use our facilities in moving around our country, in learning about exactly what we have and what we are all about, and thereby making a very vital contribution to our economy.

Of course, we have to consider distances within Australia and the scattered population. But there are other features to be considered also. That takes me back to my very first statement when I wondered whether the major domestic airlines are in fact competitive enough. So far some five Asian carriers have taken advantage of big bodied aircraft to be used domestically around Asia. Yet we still have not seen, publicly anyway, any move by the Australian domestic carriers into wide bodied jets for use on our domestic routes. These aircraft are very efficient. The old 100 series of the 727s form the basis of the fleets of the two major carriers in Australia. I understand that the two 727- 100s offered to the Government had in excess of 40,000 hours on the clock. In fact, they were the most used 727-100 series aircraft anywhere in the world. One of those aircraft is tied up with defence matters in Melbourne at the moment. The original DC9s have in excess of 30,000 hours on the clock. They are just not efficient aircraft any longer.

This move is being made to purchase yet another 727-200 series aircraft which, after all, has been a most successful aircraft and is a more efficient aircraft than the old 727-100 series aircraft. But we could still get greater economies of scale, I believe, out of the wide bodied equipment. Perhaps we should look at the possibility of purchasing that sort of aircraft, whether it be the Airbus, perhaps the new Boeing aircraft- the 757 or the 767- or whatever it may be. The arguments against the purchase of those aircraft are concerned with the utilisation of them. One point always thrown up by the domestic carriers is the problems that they encounter with curfews. But an aircraft such as the Airbus is quieter than those presently operating in Australia. In some areas there may be room to relax the curfews slightly for that type of aircraft. People say that the use of those aircraft could result in a reduction in services. Maybe that is a sacrifice that we have to make if wide bodied aircraft are to be used on the major trunk routes between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Perhaps that sacrifice should be made to get greater economy of scale and greater utilisation of that type of aircraft. Wide bodied aircraft would help to relieve the congestion at places like Sydney, which is of particular concern to a number of honourable members in this place.

One wonders what will happen if finally the domestic carriers decide to make a purchase. They have given no indication as to whether they want to go to the production line now. How much longer will the Australian travelling public have to wait until they have access to that type of aircraft? Such aircraft do not come off the end of an assembly line within a week of an order being placed. Indeed, there would be a wait of some years before their coming into operation was a feasible proposition.

I know that later this week we will be debating legislation which seeks to increase air navigation charges. During the time that I spent serving on the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism it was very interesting to see some of the propositions that were put up in that area by the domestic carriers. It was stated at one of the public hearings, by Ansett I believe, that the Government charges now comprise more than 20 per cent of the cost of a domestic airline ticket. That is quite a considerable sum. I suppose we could get ourselves into all sorts of arguments about whether or not we should adopt completely the user pays principle or whether the Australian taxpayer should provide a higher subsidy. But 20 per cent of the cost of a domestic airline ticket going to the Government in tax is quite a sizable amount indeed. That is an academic argument but surely it is one area at which we could be looking in trying to reduce the cost of domestic air fares in Australia.

Another area is that of competition. That same Committee heard stories of the third line operators such as East- West Airlines pioneering new routes with new fares. Two examples cited were the Sydney to Alice Springs direct service and the Sydney to Hobart weekend service by East- West Airlines. When it started operating on those routes it provided a promotional fare which was very much cheaper than the scheduled fare by the two major carriers. What happened? It built up the traffic on those routes and, virtually unheralded and unaccounced, the two major domestic carriers moved in on top. They went into competition with it on the fare and virtually drove it off the route.

I suppose that brings me to the point that was made by the honourable member for Shortland about the certain air of secrecy that seems to occur in the making of Australian domestic and international civil aviation policy. One of the recommendations contained in the report from the Select Committee on Tourism was that there should be greater input into aviation policy from all sections of the community but especially from the tourist industry. Whether it be the private sector of the industry or even the Australian Tourist Commission- the Government body that is involved so much in the promotion of Australian tourism- they would not have a clue about what goes on behind the closed doors of those meetings. The Department of Transport can come to a public nearing and say quite openly: ‘Yes, we consult these bodies’. We had representatives of the Australian Tourist Commission before the Committee and they said: Well, we think it is in the Act but they never talk to us’. I think that it is a disgusting situation that our major tourist organisation- the Australian Tourist Commission- is not having some input into what will happen in the future in relation to tourism, because whether we like it or not the international aviation component and the domestic aviation component are very vital parts of the future of tourism in Australia.

Many good noises have been made in recent months by the Government about the future of tourism. We can only hope that we can achieve co-operation through the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Australian Tourist Commission and the Department of Transport. Those bodies should sit down and discuss quite openly exactly what our future lines must be if we are to be fair dinkum, to use a colloquialism, about boosting the tourist industry, about getting people to Australia, travelling around Australia and looking at what is here so that eventually we can benefit. It worries me when we read in the Press that we can expect another 5 per cent increase in air fares before the end of the year. I would not be at all surprised if that 5 per cent increase, which was predicted by Trans-Australia Airlines, is brought into effect early next week after the Bill to amend the air navigation charges goes through the Parliament later this week.

I was interested to hear the comments of the honourable member for Shortland regarding the standby fares. He was wondering what will happen over the Christmas holidays. I will tell him what will happen over the Christmas holidays. It was announced this morning that the standby fares will be discontinued on 15 December for the Christmas-New Year period. In actual fact, nobody will be eligible for the standby fare. So once again the airlines will get full advantage of the top dollar fare. It is true that the holiday period is a peak period and maybe there are not too many seats available. But it is something of a farce, I believe, that at a time of goodwill, when people are trying to get around Australia to see relatives, when people are trying to get away on their annual holidays at the cheapest possible rate, for the convenience of the airlines- I am sure for nobody else- those particular fares are not available.

I was very pleased indeed to hear the Minister say in the House this afternoon that we will all get a shock in relation to future international air fares. I wonder what brought that about, because there was an announcement in Geneva yesterday our time by the International Air Transport Association. From a position of being a highly regularised industry throughout the world, all of a sudden we find IATA coming out and saying that all its member airlines may fix their own fares. That is a massive departure from the situation in the past. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on this statement by IATA because Qantas Airways Ltd, of course, is a party to these arrangements. What will happen in relation to the negotiations that Australia is undertaking at the moment with the Europeans and the Americans? Will it mean that so many of the negotiations that have been held so far virtually will be out the window? Will we have to start again the debate on cheaper air fares? If the IATA carriers can set their own fares, I am sure that there will be some interesting fare combinations on indirect routes between Australia and London. There could be a very great advantage for the Australian travelling public. Quite frankly I think the Australian travelling public deserve a little better than they have had in the past. I believe that for at least five years and probably 10 years, international travellers to and from Australia have been ripped off by the scheduled carriers. There is no doubt that Australian air fares have been high. We can talk about per kilometre charges, but we look at the facts and look at the structure of the air fares, particularly for routes such as those between Japan and Australia, it is clear that we have been paying incredibly high rates indeed.

I have said in this House before that the new arrangements with the British Government certainly go part of the way towards creating a cheaper fare regime. The fact is that the base fare that is being talked about at the moment operates for only three weeks of the year. What we are really talking about is a $900 fare which operates in the popular times, when people want to travel. When the advance purchase fares were introduced there was a small increase in the number of people who flew in off-season months. In fact the major increase in traffic happened in the peak months even though the fare was higher. Exactly the same thing is going to happen with this new fare structure. If the fare is $930 in the peak months when people are travelling, we should be saying that the new fare we have introduced is really a $930 fare, not a $568 fare at all. Sure, there will be a percentage of people travelling in the winter months to Europe at $568, but at most times people will have to pay a higher fare.

As the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) said, for someone who walks in off the street and says he has to go to London in a hurry, it is $1,400. It is an increase in the fare. The person travelling on a normal full economy ticket has got an increase in his fare. The first class passenger will have a massive increase in his fare as well. The fares certainly provide for the lower end of the market but there will be very many travellers indeed, travelling to and from Australia, paying increased fares under this new regime unless what the Minister says is true, that there is to be some shock statement coming up in the near future about aviation charges to and from Australia.

I only hope that the Australian travelling public does have the advantage of the cheapest possible fare to get out of the country and, more importantly, that people overseas have the advantage of a competitive fare to come to Australia. Australia is little enough known overseas as it is at the moment. We have to give every possible incentive to tourists to come here. There has been criticism of Qantas Airways Ltd in the past on its overseas promotional activities. We know the difficulty that the Australian Tourist Commission has had over the last 10 years with funding, trying to promote Australia with small budgets in areas such as Europe, Britain, Japan and especially the United States of America, where advertising expenses are astronomical. We need every little incentive we can possibly use to try to get people to travel to Australia now.

Going back to the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism, I think one of the most attractive propositions that Sir Freddie Laker put up to the Committee was that he was prepared to promote Australia and to promote a package tour to Australia as part of the new fare regime. Obviously that must hold a great deal of attraction for operators in the Australian tourist industry who may get some benefit out of that particular type of situation. What Sir Lenox Hewitt said in one of his statements is quite true, that certainly if you gave the tickets away overseas to bring people here they possibly still would not come, because the cost of domestic travel is too high. There is some truth in that. One hopes that now we have got a start on stand-by fares and the rest, there will be a completely new attitude coming into the structure of Australian domestic aviation fares so that we can take advantage, as was said earlier, of people moving around the country.

The new 727-200 that is to be purchased by Ansett will clearly be a more efficient aircraft. It is certainly time that the two major carriers came clean and came forward with just what are their future intentions on the wide-bodied aircraft.

The economies of it have certainly been proved. The availability is there for more seats at a cheaper rate; it is going to be an incentive for more people to travel. We have already seen evidence that many of the people taking advantage of the stand-by fares would not normally be airline travellers; they would find some other method. If it can be an added contribution to the income of the airlines, income that they would not necessarily have had before, it will make for greater economies of scale.

Deregulation seems to be the word worldwide. Deregulation, despite what some people have said in this House, has not been terribly unsuccessful in the United States. If you look through the balance sheets of airlines such as Delta, you will see that at the moment they are having record years. The airlines put it down to two factors. One factor is the bodies in seats once again. They are getting the utilisation of their aircraft. The second factor is the up-to-date wide bodied efficient equipment. Possibly we have a lot to learn from the concept of deregulation, allowing the industry to find its own fare level in some areas, bringing in wide-bodied efficient aircraft which would give us the space to be able to involve more people who would not normally be travelling with an airline, and in fact generating new revenue that the airlines say they so badly need. I support the Bill for the new 727, but I do believe that it is about time the domestic airlines had a very close look at their operations. With the co-operation of the tourist industry and the various government departments, they should see exactly what they can do to provide more economic and cheaper domestic airline travel for the good of all Australians.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The Bill before the House, the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill (No. 2) 1978, through which the Australian Government will guarantee the borrowing by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd of $US1 1.12m for the purchase of a new 727-200 series aircraft, will put the two airlines on an equal footing with an equal number of front-line aircraft, the 727-200 series. Before starting to deal with the Bill I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the discourtesy once again of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in walking out of the House and leaving a junior Minister in charge of the debate.

Mr Newman:

– Two junior Ministers.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Not two. You were just packing up to leave. The Minister for

Transport had no regard or consideration whatsoever, either for his own colleague the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) who has just resumed his seat, or any other speaker in the chamber. It is typical of this arrogant Minister over the period of this Parliament and the previous Parliament. He is renowned for his arrogance. He has displayed it once again tonight. In fact, this Bill should have been brought on for debate last Thursday night. It was not, because the Minister had left town. He had packed up and left Canberra. He was not in Canberra last Thursday night. Once again that brings us back to the situation of the arrogance of the Minister for Transport.

The Minister’s speech on this Bill and the Bill itself are remarkable for what they do not tell us, the information they do not convey to this Parliament. What is the rate of interest? There is no indication of that. It is impossible to find out what the rate of interest is. It is a top secret. That information is not made available to the Parliament. We do not know whether it is borrowing at 8 per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent; but you can guarantee anything you like that it is not the latter, because this Government is a fairly favoured borrower. There is no information, there is no real explanation given in the Minister’s speechand it was a very minor, short speech- as to the reasons why a 727-200 series aircraft is being purchased. Why have the two domestic airlines not moved into the wide-bodied aircraft era? Every airline in the world has moved into widebodied aircraft except the two major trunk route domestic airline companies in Australia. Pressure was applied to these companies to get this sort of aircraft as far back as 1974. Ansett was the bugbear- I almost used another expression- on that occasion. He was the one who was opposed to that proposal.

I repeat my earlier comment that there is very little information in the Bill. It is remarkable how this Government gets away without informing honourable members of the full details. It is interesting to note that Trans-Australian Airlines has elected to finance its purchase from its own internal sources. Whilst the Opposition is not opposing this Bill, I think that we may have been a little hasty in agreeing not to oppose it, a practice that we have followed with such legislation for years in this place. I am not blaming anybody for this. It has been recognised that it is better to borrow than to use your own money. In the main there has been a ready source of finance provided by the aircraft manufacturers at a cheap rate of interest. But in view of the fact that TAA has internal resources to finance its purchase we should have had a much closer look at why Ansett is not doing likewise. This legislation is another means of providing cheap money for the Ansett company.

Let me deal with the rates of interest applicable on borrowings overseas. We know that the interest rate is not for publication. As far as the company is concerned, this is confidential information, and the Government will not release it; but you can bet anything you like that this money is being borrowed on the basis of the most favoured borrower. I will cite to the House varying interest rates to illustrate what is involved. I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) for giving me the opportunity to present this information, which is set out in a question on notice at page 796 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 24 August. In the answer to that question a table sets out the rates of interest on money borrowed by this Government over the last two years. I draw the attention of honourable members to this table, which shows that money borrowed in May from the United States at public issue was at 8.45 per cent and 9.125 per cent and that money borrowed from the Netherlands was at 7.625 per cent. The loans were for 5 years, 15 years and 10 years respectively. I do not want to waste time by going through the whole table. I merely draw the attention of honourable members to the rate of interest on the money that was borrowed. The fact that the Austraiian Government is guaranteeing Ansett ‘s loan means that Ansett is getting the most favoured borrower treatment. This means that Ansett will be able to borrow money at approximately those rates of interest I have already cited or at the most a half of one per cent in excess of those rates. The Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd ‘News Review Sheet’ dated October 1978 shows that that company- another favoured borrower- is borrowing money at 9.7 per cent for 6 years, 9.8 per cent for 10 years and 9.9 per cent for 15 years.

We know that Ansett Transport Industries Ltd provides this Parliament with a statement of its airline activities, but the company operates as a total transport company covering the hire car business, hire purchase, buses, holiday hotels and motels- a chain of them right throughout the country. The hire car business has now been entered by TAA also. Ansett is a major transport operator. Although it provides a financial statement on its airline activities let me point out that it was only extreme pressure applied by the Opposition prior to 1972 that forced the then government to require Ansett to table such information. For years that information was confidential to the company and it did not have to make it public.

This legislation gives the opportunity to Ansett to get cheap money. I have already cited the interest rates on Australian Government borrowings and BHP borrowings. Yet a hire purchase company in which Ansett Transport Industries has a very substantial investment, Associated Securities Ltd, is one of the risky hire purchase companies or finance companies. This company is advertising that it will borrow money over a four-year term at 1 1% per cent. If TAA can finance its aircraft purchases from internal sources why can Ansett not do the same? There is one simple reason. Because this Government is guaranteeing Ansett ‘s loan it is able to borrow money overseas at a much lower rate of interest than it would have to pay if it borrowed on the Austraiian market. I repeat that ASL is advertising that it will borrow money over four years at 1 1 % per cent and BHP is able to borrow over a period of six years at 9.7 per cent. Those figures illustrate the rates of interest Ansett Transport Industries would have to pay if it borrowed on the Australian market. It is important to bear in mind that this legislation is a form of providing Ansett with cheap money.

Over the years Ansett has been able to use airline money. The airline industry has provided a ready flow of cash. The money is coming in all the time. It is a cash operation, there is very little credit. Because of the two-airline agreement Ansett is in a favourable position of being able to say to the people that if they want to travel they have to pay cash. So there has been a constant flow of money. When the Ansett Transport Industries television venture was not going so well the airline provided the cash flow to maintain liquidity. The same thing can be said about Ansett ‘s other activities. I welcome the Minister for Transport back into the chamber. Ansett has used its airline finance to maintain its associated interests. This legislation, as I said, is one method of providing this company with cheap money to the detriment of the aviation industry if I might say so, because one would think that in view of the availability of this cheap money a greater number of innovative cheap air fare structures would have been introduced. From my own personal experience in dealing with Ansett Transport Industries I found it to be a most difficult company to get interested in off-peak fares or any of the other forms of cheap air fares in which other countries have been engaging for some considerable time. Ansett has never been co-operative. It has never been helpful in providing a better transport system for air travellers throughout this country.

Let me now turn to the profits of this company. One has to look at the whole of the company’s activities, not just the aviation side of them. Over the last six years this company as a combined company has made quite substantial profits- in 1972-73, $6,310,000; in 1973-74, $6,838,000; in 1974-75, $8,219,000; in 1975-76, $14,411,000; in 1976-77, $17,270,000; and in 1977-78, $18,408,000. With that sort of capital flowing into the company, why does it have to go on to the overseas market to borrow money? The reason is that it can get cheap money and helps this Government to balance its overseas reserves by creating a capital inflow.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill and the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport are remarkable in what they do not say. One of the things that concern me is that these two airlines are continuing to buy 727-200 series aircraft when the wide bodied jet is here to stay. Aircraft such as the Boeing, the Douglas, the Lockheed and the European Airbus, the A300, are much more economical to operate. They are not as noisy as the present breed of aircraft. To give some indication of the difference in the noise levels of the aircraft, the 727-200 series has a noise rating of 96 EPNdB- effective perceived noise level decibels, the L1011 has a rating of 94 EPNdB, the DC 10 has a rating of 94 EPNdB and the A300B has a rating of 92 EPNdB. This means that the A300B or the other two wide-bodied jets are much quieter aircraft than those of the Boeing 727-200 series. These noise levels should be borne in mind if view of the fact that Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide all have curfews. As far as people are concerned, the noise level is of major importance and for that reason alone this Government should be forcing the airlines into the wide-bodied jet era.

A report which is due to be tabled shortly, the Modern Airport Needs of Sydney report, deals with the congestion that exists at Sydney airport. It is time the Government forced the airlines into the purchase of wide-bodied jets, which will reduce the congestion. The wide-bodied jets are capable of carrying almost twice as many passengers as the 727-200 series aircraft which would reduce the number of aircraft operating into and out of that airport as well as reducing the noise level which causes discomfort to the people who live around Sydney airport and other airports.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You should still be Minister for Civil Aviation.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I know that and the Labor Government should still be in office. The purchase of wide-bodied aircraft would also have the effect of providing cheaper fares because these aircraft are more economical to operate. The Government talks about reducing air fares and the use of these aircraft is one way actually to put that into operation. The Government should also cut out the stupid practice of parallel scheduling, of aircraft taking off at the same time to go to the same airport. The fact of the matter is that on many occasions those aircraft are operating at half capacity and one aircraft could actually do the job. The airlines are in a monopoly situation whereby they can do as they please. All they have to do is go to the Minister and show that their operations are not profitable or that they are not reaching the profit target that has been set by the Minister and they are then automatically given an increase in fares. There has been no real investigation of the operations of the airlines as to why they cannot operate at a much cheaper rate than they do at the present time.

As far as Qantas Airways Ltd is concerned, I noted recently that it wanted to operate between Perth and the east coast. There is no reason why Qantas ‘s excess capacity should not be utilised. We need to look at the question of aviation travel in the context of the benefit to Australia as a whole and not simply in terms of the profitability of Qantas or the two domestic operators. The introduction of wide-bodied jets would provide cheaper fares as well as reduced noise levels and congestion around airports. It is a pity that Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Asutralia could not undertake some of the innovative fare programs that East- West Air.lines, for example, has introduced. I think it is time the Government gave East- West greater encouragement than it has had over previous years so that it may become more competitive with the two major trunk route operators. I have said previously that as far as I am concerned there is justification for having the two-airline policy, but if the two major airlines continue to restrict their activities and do not give a damn about cheaper fares it is time the Government let in a third operator, such as East- West. I have always found East- West to be a good airline which is prepared to look at the market and consider all sorts of ways and means to expand its share of the market and reduce fares for the people who want to travel. It comes back to the point that the Government must get on with the job instead of allowing the airlines to hide behind the twoairline agreement, which is a monstrous agreement and which is almost impossible to review. The Government that is in office at the time the agreement comes up for review has to give five years’ notice of termination and requires the numbers in both Houses to do it. Unless the companies agree to it, it is almost impossible to amend the agreement. I feel that it is time the Government did something positive about this matter instead of allowing the companies to increase their fares time after time. In the last 2Vi years there has been an increase in air fares of some 25.5 per cent.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I would like the Minister for Transport in his reply- he has the right of reply if he wants to exercise it- to tell honourable members the rate of interest that Ansett Transport Industries will be paying on the money for which the Australian Government, the Australian people, are guarantor. I believe we are entitled to know and the people are entitled to know. There is no need to keep this information the close secret that it has been for so long.

I also would like the Minister to indicate the reasons why Ansett Transport Industries decided to borrow this money. I would like him to tell us why it did not use its internal resources, why it has not used the profits it has made over the years, to purchase the aircraft, just as the Australian National Airlines Commission elected to use its financial resources rather than to go to the loan market. The Minister in his reply can give us the answers to these two questions.

Another matter I wish to raise concerns offset payments. The Government never gives an explanation as to what offset arrangement deal has been made when a decision has been taken to purchase an aircraft. This is something we are entitled to know. The Australian aircraft industry employs a considerable number of people who have never had real continuity of employment. They have led a hand-to-mouth kind of existence never knowing when the next job was coming. What is the answer? I believe, for example, that the European Airbus people are prepared to make very firm commitments in respect of the amount of offset payments that are available. I know that the Fokker organisation was prepared to make arrangements in respect of offset payments when the Department of Transport purchased F28 aircraft. I think we are entitled to have this information.

I think we also are entitled to know when the two main trunk route operators intend operating wide-bodied jets. The Minister will be aware that wide-bodied jets are much cheaper to operate and they can be the means by which fares can be reduced more quickly than has been the case over recent years. These jets also provide a better service. Also, their use would help to reduce the congestion and noise level at major city airports.

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

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

– We are debating a Bill which seeks to authorise the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to guarantee a loan of something in excess of $llm to enable Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd to purchase an additional Boeing 727 aircraft in 1979. Before going into details perhaps I should answer one or two of the reservations made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). The honourable member has the experience of having been Federal Minister for Transport. Nevertheless he raised a number of matters which I think effectively express his indignation, and very likely the indignation of the Opposition, at the Bill that is now before the House. The honourable member referred to most favoured treatment being given in this Bill to Ansett Transport Industries. He, of course, rather conveniently overlooks the fact that this Bill does nothing more than put Ansett Transport Industries in a comparable position with Trans-Australia Airlines when it comes to the question of borrowing money for the purchase of essential aircraft. I say ‘essential aircraft’ in the sense that the equipment we are discussing tonight is essential to the development plans that one of the major domestic carriers has for this country.

The honourable member for Newcastle talked about such matters as a secret deal being carried out. He referred to the fact that this money may be raised overseas. He wants to know intimate details of the interest rate that will apply. What he overlooks- with respect, he should know better- is that there is no obligation whatever on Ansett Transport Industries to raise this money overseas. In fact, Ansett Transport Industries is at perfect liberty to raise the money in Australia if it should wish to do so. How can the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) be expected to declare to the House at this moment what the interest rate shall be? The Minister rightly believes that it is up to Ansett Transport Industries to raise this loan money on the best terms and conditions it can negotiate. Whether that happens in Australia or whether it happens overseas, or whether it is one single loan or whether it is a series of smaller loans, are things that Ansett Transport Industries is best able to negotiate for itself. I think that answers the query raised by the previous speaker who is a former Minister for Transport. The honourable member’s claim about special or most favoured treatment is a lot of nonsense.

This agreement, this guarantee, puts Ansett Transport Industries in an entirely comparable position with the government-owned airline. What the honourable member for Newcastle is saying, more likely, is that he does not approve of the two airline agreement. I query why he did not say that directly. When he was in government he took no steps to abolish or to interfere with the two airline agreement; yet when he plays the role of Opposition he takes a different stance. He depicts the two airline agreement as something sinister. I am not here to say that I will defend all aspects of the two airline agreement. Far be it for me to do that. But I think it is fair to say and to put on record that the two airline agreement has served Australia and Australians particularly well. That is not to say that the time might not have arrived for some modifications to be made to that policy.

I think the House should rightly congratulate the Minister because this Minister and his Government have undertaken an exhaustive review of the domestic airline policy in addition to the international airline policy. I believe that the Minister will announce soon certain policy matters in this regard. I think we can believe that the changes which might result will be innovative. I think the most important thing we can look forward to is that the changes will complement movement within Australia by Australians

I would describe the present airline policy as regulated competition. Why do I say regulated competition? In the first place, two domestic carriers are using virtually the same aircraft, flying virtually the same routes on virtually the same timetables and, generally speaking, charging the same fares. Any independent observer looking at this situation would have grounds for querying where the competition exists in such a policy. I have contact very regularly with people in the electorate of La Trobe who say they want changes to domestic airline policy. Certainly they want cheaper fares. Who does not? We want cheaper fares both within the country and internationally.

With the regulated competition to which I refer one feature is perfectly evident, that is, the supply may well regulate the demand; it will certainly dominate the demand. The question that arises is whether such a situation is in the best interests of Australians who want to travel. To be fair, one should say there have been considerable achievements in domestic airline policy. For instance, taking the fare structures, twenty years ago the cost to fly from Sydney to Melbourne was in the order of $24 in today’s money terms. Now it costs three times that amount. One might well say that is not a bad achievement over an elapsed period of 20 years. If one looks at international air fares one will see that there have been some very spectacular gains. For instance, to fly from Australia to London today, even at the going rates, costs half of what it cost 30 years ago. Of course the services provided are not comparable. Today’s services and today’s conditions of travel are infinitely better than they were 30 years ago. It should be fairly stated that the Parliament and the country are looking for some innovations from the Minister in regard to international airline policy and international air fares. I have a feeling that this Minister will deliver the goods.

Mr Stewart:

– He does not like Laker.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– It is not a question of any prejudices. This Minister does not have prejudices. What he is looking for is the best deal for Australians who wish to travel and indeed for people who want to come to Australia. Presently the number of people who leave this country in the course of any 12 months is double the number of people who come here as visitors. Clearly that is a situation which any responsible government should take steps to arrest. What has been done? The honourable member for Grayndler refers to the record of this Minister in this regard. Only at the weekend an American negotiator arrived in this country to conduct discussions regarding the airline cost structure across the Pacific and to discuss which airlines should be operating across the Pacific. It would not have been the first time that international negotiators have arrived in Australia with an incorrect impression of government airline policy, and the steps this Government has taken to make international travel more attractive and less expensive to people leaving the country and people visiting Australia.

I would congratulate the Minister in that he was prepared to open negotiations on a government to government level not only with the United Kingdom which is the area to which perhaps most publicity has been given, but also with a number of other countries and a number of other governments with a view to introducing an entirely new international air fare structure. We might reflect on whether the delay in introducing a new air fare structure has been the fault of the Australian Government or whether it has been the fault and the procrastination of governments of other countries with which we have been dealing. I think the role that has been played by the Minister for Transport in this regard warrants the respect and congratulations of this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! Before the honourable member proceeds, I draw his attention to the fact that in the last 10 minutes he has travelled a considerable distance from the subject matter of the Bill. If he could come back to the general circuit area, it might be helpful.

Mr BAILLIEU:

-I will be pleased to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. I entered the discussion on the international scene only because the previous two speakers from the Opposition side in fact referred to it. If you want to limit the discussion to the domestic situation, I will be pleased to do so. I want to say to the Minister quite categorically on behalf of the people in the electorate of La Trobe, that they require the stand-by fare structure to be continued. I do not know how I will explain to my constituents that the stand-by procedures may be curtailed during the Christmas period. I would like the Minister to comment on that point in his response. To me that is devastating news which I do not believe any honourable member of this House anticipated.

Mr Morris:

– You must not have thought about it.

Mr BAILLIEU:

-I do not believe any honourable member anticipated the situation. I believe that when the stand-by fare structure was introduced, when the policy was introduced, and when the Minister announced and revealed the discussions that he had had with the domestic carriers, the understanding of this House was and remains that the stand-by fares and provisions would be adhered to, irrespective of the time of the year. I know the airlines have an argument at present whereby they claim that they are carrying 40 per cent more passengers but are taking no additional revenue.

Mr Goodluck:

– It is good for Tasmania.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– Let me say not only on behalf of the Tasmanians but also on behalf of Victorians who want to travel interstate- after all it is the people from Victoria and New South Wales who are generating the greater part of this capacity because many of them are going to Tasmania and are coming back- that they wish to see the stand-by policy continued. Might I add one more point, that is to refer the Minister to the parallel scheduling. I know that is has been said in this context that the first domestic carrier that discontinues the parallel scheduling procedures will go broke. That is the feeling within the industry. I do not agree with it. Certainly there are the milk runs, a terminology which is used in the industry and which refers to the east coast major airline routes. It may be acceptable that the majority of traffic wants to leave Sydney or Melbourne at 8 a.m. in order to travel to one of the other major capitals; it is perfectly understandable and that service should be provided. What is indefensible is that on virtually every airline route within the country, not only capitaltocapital but also to provincial and some of the inland cities and certainly across to the west coast, parallel scheduling has resulted in the two domestic carriers working within minutes of each other.

Mr Goodluck:

– It is a bit stupid, isn’t it?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– My friend says it is a bit stupid. I think it is indefensible, and I ask the Minister to take what steps he can to see that changes are made, although not necessarily in relation to which airline may or may not go broke. I do not believe that that is an argument in this context. What needs to be made perfectly clear is that Australians who travel wish to have a choice, and I do not believe that that choice is provided adequately at present by the two domestic carriers. I think there is a tendency that the twoairline policy as presently constituted is in fact limiting competition, although how that situation might be changed is too detailed a discussion to get into tonight. That is a policy matter on which I know the Minister is working and on which I hope he will continue to work. I suggest that when the Minister replies tonight he gives us his and the Government’s position on the measures that may be taken to provide a greater choice, a greater variety and a more competitive atmosphere whereby Australians who wish to travel domestically can have access to the best and most efficient and, last but by no means least, safest possible airline service.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-I joint in the debate to reinforce some of the views that my colleagues have put. The Bill deals with the purchase of another Boeing 727-200 series aircraft, and I think that those of us who use the airlines regularly would see this as a very satisfactory aircraft for Australian conditions so far as comfort and reliability of service are concerned. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) mentioned that there was some problem about noise levels. However, the Boeing has been a very efficient and effective aircraft. One wonders why Trans-Australia Airlines does not require the loan procedures whereas Ansett Airlines of Australia does, and no details are given. One is also concerned that the continuation of the purchase of 200-series aircraft seems to be putting off any decision about the wide-bodied aircraft which must come ultimately. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in his second reading speech said:

On the domestic scene the reports of the domestic air transport policy review committee have been released and I am looking for public reaction to the recommendations contained in the reports.

As I recall it, the Minister presented the document to Parliament and announced that as there was a shortage of copies a copy would be tabled in the Parliamentary Library for the use of members. As late as today I tried to get a copy of the report from the Papers Office but copies are just not available. Still the only copy available to members is the one in the Library. If the Minister wants public reaction I do not know how he is going to get it if copies of the report are as unavailable to the public as they are to members. The report is a worthwhile one and raises many issues which do not necessarily have to be dealt with in discussion on an adversary basis. I hope that the Minister will get weaving and do something about that.

I join with the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) on the question of parallel services. This matter has been raised time and time again. There seems to be an ingrown superstition or adage in the airlines that on the hour is peak hour and on the half hour is off-peak and if that is varied one airline is going to be disadvantaged. I think that is so much rubbish because on some of the routes at any rate the situation is being reached where at certain times of the day the airlines could almost run a shuttle service. It is about time that the airlines were fronted and told to stop that nonsense. The honourable member for La Trobe tended to imply that members on this side of the House were querying the two-airline policy. I point out to him that the querying of the two-airline policy is not against the policy as such but relates to the modernisation of the concept. If the honourable member has read the domestic air transport policy review committee’s report, which is in the Parliamentary Library, he will have noticed that in those recommendations there are some alterations to the original concept. Briefly, in some areas the Committee refers to the regional airlines and the fact that, although not talking about a third airline, there are sectors where the regional airlines could well compete with the two principal airlines. I think that is a variation of the theme.

The report also makes some comments on the question of freight carriage. That is a rather confused picture at the moment in relation to the carriage of freight by the domestic airlines. There is a growing number of air cargo companies, some of them showing very rapid development, some of them using the two existing airlines and the regional airlines, and some even getting into the act themselves with the purchase of planes. The recommendations of the policy review committee indicate that it is no good staying with the two-airline policy as originally enunciated. We have to look at what has occurred in Australia in regard to changes in aircraft, changes in demand and so on, and adapt to them. Almost every speaker has referred to the fare structure in relation to the domestic airlines.

One of the recommendations of the committee which I find interesting is recommendation 24, which queries the manner of working out how the other interests of the airline companies affect ordinary air passengers. In other words, are the air travellers who are using the airline for transport from point A to point B in effect subsidising other operations such as hotels, road tours and all the rest of it, and is there some disadvantage built in for the air traveller per se? One knows that on the international scene particularly one can get a package tour for eight or nine days often far cheaper than the economy class return fare. One suspects that a little bit of that comes into the package tours to Surfers Paradise and other areas in Queensland, and even to Wrest Point, where there is little difference between the return economy class fare and the return package fare which provides several nights’ accommodation and $10 worth of chips to use at the casino. Obviously, according to that report, insufficient data is available for us to be certain just how much of this goes on, and perhaps we should be acquiring data in this area. One also sees how the two-airline policy can dominate the rental car war that is going on at the moment. I will not go into the detail of that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I am sure you would stop me.

One of the recommendations in the review committee’s report was that the airlines should start thinking about innovative fares for the Australian situation, and a couple of suggestions have been put up. They are pretty tentative, and I am sure that much more can be done. Honourable members are probably aware of what has been happening on the domestic airline scene in the United States of America. I want honourable members to understand that I realise the population of the United States is a heck of a lot larger than that of Australia; so it can build up demand. I think that there are some ideas in the United States that we in Australia could well look at. As an example, I shall quote from Time of 14 August 1978:

So Tar this year, US airlines have carried 180 million passengers, a 16 per cent increase over last year and the largest gain in airline history … the earnings of airlines are heading toward unprecedented heights-

The article goes on to state that lower prices lead to higher demand, which in turn creates higher profits. That situation can be reduced to an absurdity if it is projected further. The attitude in the United States airline industry is stated in the article as follows:

The US airline industry has been treated like a semimonopolistic public utility, with routes and fares controlled by the Civil Aeronautics Board, which has sought to avoid overcompetition and ruinous price wars.

Now, the reverse position applies. The article goes on to state:

Now, President Carter wants to free the airlines from Government economic controls entirely and allow them to fly anywhere at any time and charge any price, no matter how ridiculously low.

Of course, that too can have an adverse effect in that, if nearly everyone begins to fly at a cut rate fare, the break even point for airlines will rise until they cannot make a profit, no matter how packed the planes are. Australia has to learn some lessons from the United States experience. With our basic two-airline policy we must somehow strike the middle path. If we are to continue with a two-airline policy, we must have some control but encourage the innovative type of fares. It is interesting to note that on some routes in America there are at least 90 different fare structures. The mind boggles at the problems this brings with it. If we are to have this type of fare structure which leads to vast increases in the number of passengers carried, we will have to look at some of the problems that will arise. I shall deal with some of them. Firstly, there will be gripes from business travellers who are paying the full fare to travel in planes crowded with concession fare travellers. If there is to be a great increase in the number of people travelling, the reservation systems of our airports will not be adequate. Transport to and from airports and handling facilities at airports are very rapidly becoming inadequate. This will be particularly the case with the wide-bodied aircraft. One only has to see the shemozzle that exists at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport with the separate domestic and international terminals. Problems are created when a couple of jumbo jets arrive at the same time. We have problems already with the delivery of luggage from these aircraft. With the increased numbers of passengers the position will be even worse. Honourable members who travel from Canberra to Melbourne on Friday morning know that it takes as long for their luggage to come up onto the carousel as it takes to fly from Canberra to Melbourne. This is the situation at an airport that is supposed to have a relatively new and modern domestic terminal. These are some of the problems that we will face.

Having commented on the increased traffic that will flow from innovative fares and the need for airport facilities that will be needed to cope with these increased numbers of passengers, I refer now to the future aircraft after the Boeing 727-200. There seem to be pressures to delay the decision about future aircraft. It seems that the three main wide-bodied jets to be considered are all paper aeroplanes at the moment. I think one can fairly say that the contenders are the Boeing 767, which will carry 197 passengers. Its delivery date could be 1982. The delivery date for the Lockheed L 1 0 1 1 -400 series, which will carry 230 passengers is 1 98 1 . The Airbus A3 10-200, which will take 208 to 229 passengers, will be available for delivery in 1982, although I guess that the Airbus 300 could also be a contender.

My understanding is that the airlines are looking for the best aircraft that will carry between 220 and 230 passengers. One wonders just how long it will be possible to delay the decision about the wide-bodied aircraft into which the airlines are planning to move. There will be a long lead time before the aircraft is available and the problems of facilities that have to be made available for the passengers and for air traffic control. These aircraft will be different technically in their operation and will require special facilities for their control. One hopes that in light of all the recommendations that have been made on the domestic scene with regard to decisions as they affect passengers, freight, fares and the twoairline policy and so on there can be more hastening of the decision about the next generation of aircraft for mass transport. Probably, that requires public debate too because airport facilities are governed by aircraft type.

I reiterate that I regret the public reaction to the recommendations of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review is being inhibited by the lack of copies of its report. The report is of interest. The recommendations seem to be down to earth and should be subject to critical scrutiny. This debate has ranged rather wide of the subject matter of the Bill, the purchase of extra Boeing 727-200 aircraft. At the moment we welcome the use of this aircraft but we look forward to the decision being made on the future generation of aircraft to be used on domestic routes.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– in reply- I thank the honourable members who have taken part in the debate. I believe that it has been very constructive. The honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) said that insufficient copies of the report of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review were available to members of Parliament and members of the general public. I am afraid that we will have to take up the printing of the report with the Australian Government Publishing Service. We have not been able to get a full run of the reports printed as quickly as we would have liked. In fact, we had 6 copies of the report photostated and placed in the Parliamentary Library- I draw to the attention of the honourable member that it was not one copy- so that at least Ministers and honourable members could look at it.

The honourable member for Scullin also raised the question of de-regulation of airlines in the United States of America. It is fair to remind the House that the United States of America owns over 50 per cent of the world ‘s airlines and flies over 50 per cent of the world’s aircraft. In fact, I read somewhere the other day that United States domestic airlines carry more passengers than are carried by all the international airlines put together. So honourable members can get some idea of the volume of their business. One can understand why the Americans, from thenstrong standpoint, consider that de-regulation is the answer to finding a solution to the competitive position amongst international airlines, but I make the point that if one owns 50 per cent of the world’s airlines and becomes involved in a struggle about aviation it is likely that one will win.

Many countries have an international airline that is equally competitive given a fair start. Australia is one of those countries. Qantas Airways Ltd can compete with any airline round the world given an equal opportunity. But, given the mighty muscle of the United States in a totally de-regulated situation, I doubt whether any airline could compete with the Americans. That is why it is really only the United States that is talking about de-regulation. I do not see any other country jumping into de-regulation. For all the talk about the success of the so-called deregulation across the Atlantic, the President of the International Air Transport Association pointed out in his address the other day, which I read with some interest, that there has been only a 2 per cent increase in traffic across the Atlantic in the period in which the so-called de-regulation and fare cuts have occurred.

Dr Jenkins:

– What about the 16 per cent increase in domestic air fares?

Mr NIXON:

– Certainly there has been a big increase in domestic air fares. That brings me to a point which I think all speakers in the debate raised, that is, the question of the domestic situation. The domestic review points up the fact that there ought to be more competition between the airlines which operate under the two-airline agreement, but it has come to the conclusion that the two-airline agreement will continue to provide the best basis for continued, reliable and efficient service throughout Australia in the years ahead. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) and the honourable member for Scullin rightly pointed out that within the twoairline agreement there ought to be a wider choice of fare type structures and less parallel scheduling, particularly on some routes. Parallel scheduling has been a difficult problem for governments and the airlines down through the years. One of the fundamental reasons is that what is called the cream run, that is, the Sydney to Melbourne run, carries a high volume of traffic early in the morning- 7 o’clock, 8 o’clock, and 9 o’clock- and late in the evening- 5 o’clock, 6 o’clock, 7 o’clock and perhaps 8 o’clock. For that reason the two airlines have to position their aircraft so as to enable them to fly that high volume of demand traffic. Because of curfews at some airports they are limited in the number of hours they can fly to such outposts as Cairns and Darwin and even across to Perth. I have asked the airlines to take a look at what the report recommends and to come to me with some answers about breaking up the parallel scheduling on those routes that it is possible to do so. Canberra is a typical example. I do not believe that it is necessary for Canberra to be serviced by a completely tied and parallel schedule, as at present. I believe that that is something that will flow out of the domestic review.

I refer again to the fare structure of the domestic airlines. I have asked the airlines to be a bit more innovative and imaginative. They have introduced standby fares, which were extended this week to two new routes, including the Adelaide to Perth route. It is true that there have been reductions of between 30 per cent and 40 per cent. On the basis of the figures which the airlines had they believed that the drain of regular traffic was too great on the standby passengers and they have indicated that they would like to try a period of experimentation at the 30 per cent level. After another couple of months we will have more figures on which to make a judgment on the percentage of the cut for standby fares and the success of the scheme generally. It is true to say that it is beholden upon the two major domestic airlines to be much more innovative than they have had to be in the past. I think that that is something that will flow out of this matter in due course.

The question of the use of wide-bodied jets was raised by almost every speaker in the debate. I wish to make a couple of points about that. The first is that the introduction of the wide-bodied jets depends very much on the traffic level that the airlines believe will exist in the years ahead. We all have to recognise that it is a very expensive exercise for the airlines to switch from one type of aircraft to another. It is a much cheaper proposition to add another 727-200 series aircraft to the tail of the fleet than to swing across to the wide-bodied jets. Therefore, the airlines have to be very sure that they will not be imposing more expenses upon the travelling public by introducing wide-bodied jets. As most honourable members would know, both airlines are studying the feasibility of the use of wide-bodied aircraft. Doubtless their introduction will come about as soon as a judgment is made about what is the right time for their introduction. Costly facilities have to be made available to match the introduction of these wide-bodied jets. It is not a decision that one ought to take or can take lightly.

The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) raised the question of offset payments. I point out that my colleague the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) is responsible for offset arrangements and it is he who satisfies himself that the offset arrangements with the Boeing Corporation will be adequate following the purchase of the next Boeing 727 aircraft. A couple of honourable members asked why Ansett Airlines of Australia did not use its own internal financial resources for the purchase of these aircraft when Trans-Australia Airlines does. This is a matter of commercial judgment for the airlines. Under the two-airlines agreement they can both avail themselves of a borrowing program with government guarantees if they wish. It is simply a matter of their making a judgment as to what is the cheaper- the use of their own internally generated funds or borrowing overseas.

The honourable member for Newcastle asked what the rates of interest will be. I point out to him that the loans have not yet been negotiated. So it is not possible to know what the rates of interest will be. As the honourable member for La Trobe pointed out, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has to satisfy himself in respect of all aspects of the loan, including the rates of interest, before the Government makes any commitment in respect of the guarantee that it gives. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) asked why certain reports were not published. I was out of the House when he made this point but I understand that he was complaining that the submissions that went into the international civil aviation policy review were not made available publicly.

Mr Morris:

– I said to delete the confidential and commercial sections and release the rest.

Mr NIXON:

-We had some difficulty with the submissions that were made in regard to the ICAP review and the domestic review because of the confidential and commercial information contained in them. I invited those who made the submissions to make their submissions public if they so wished. I do not know how many of them have taken up that matter. It is quite within the province of those who made the submissions to make them public, as I am aware some did. That is the fairest way. In fact we published the ICAP review with as much information as possible, at the same time taking out the commercial and confidential information that was given to us to help us to come to proper conclusions. In all fairness, I do not think that it was possible to publish more than has been published in respect of it. I think I have answered most of the points raised by honourable members. I thank those who took part in the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2761

LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Audit Amendment Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Mr Speaker has received the following nominations of members to the legislation committee to consider the Audit Amendment Bill: Government members are Mr Eric Robinson, the member in charge of the Bill, Mr Baume, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Connolly, Mr. Dobie, Mr Falconer, Mr Fisher, Mr Katter, Mr McVeigh, Mr Simon and Mr Wilson. Opposition members are Mr John

Brown, Mr Fry, Mr Hurford, Mr Martin and Mr Willis

page 2762

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Construction · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the motion to take note of the ministerial statement and papers on the reorganisation of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as they are associated matters. Separate questions will, of course, be put on the Bill and the motion to take note of the papers at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the Bill and the ministerial statement and papers to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The purpose of the Science and Industry Research Amendment Bill is twofold: Firstly, to redefine and to broaden the functions of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and, secondly, to provide a new organisational structure for its direction and control. These amendments to the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 were foreshadowed in the ministerial statement made on 1 1 May this year, which statement is also the subject of this debate. The Bill is based upon the Government’s decision on the recommendations of the report following the independent inquiry into the CSIRO, which inquiry became known as the Birch Committee inquiry. That Committee commenced work in November 1976 and its report was tabled in Parliament on 6 October 1977. As I indicated earlier, we learned of the Government’s attitude on 1 1 May 1978.

Indeed, the Government seems to have accepted the need to make most of the changes recommended by the Birch Committee. For instance, clause 6 of the Bill sets out the revised functions of the CSIRO. The important provisions include, firstly, an overall purpose in research for the benefit of Australia, its industry, community and national objectives; secondly, a definite role in the application and utilisation of research results; thirdly, international liaison in this important field of scientific research; and, lastly, the establishment and award of fellowships. Clause 7 of the Bill establishes new arrangements to deal with the direction, management, staffing and financing of the CSIRO.

The Opposition is not opposing this Bill. In fact, we commend the Government for the review arrangements which it has made. However, this is not to say that the Bill is without flaws, nor should this be taken to mean that we in the Opposition are happy with the Government’s policy towards research and development in Australia- far from it, as will be seen as I progress. Indeed, it is my intention to concentrate for most of my time on the weaknesses in the approach of the Government, as we know it at this time, to industrial research and development. As shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, I am leading in this debate tonight because research and development is so important to Australian industry, to its restructuring and to the provision of new jobs.

Before I go any further I wish to speak about the paramount importance we in the Opposition place on research and development. The long term viability of manufacturing in Australia requires a high level of modern technology and of technological innovation. Such innovation leads to greater efficiency and better utilisation of resources. It leads to new and improved products and processes, all of which are essential for the maintenance of international competitiveness of Australian industries. If there is one thing on which we all agree it is that Australian industry has to become internationally competitive, not only so that we can sell our products abroad and get the economies of scale by means of the longer runs which come from exporting but also so that we can compete with imports into this country at a lower rate of protection. It is extraordinary how lacking we as a nation have been in innovation. I assert that this applies to our Australian industries.

That situation is such a contrast to that pertaining to the man on the land who, as those of us who have been brought up in the countryside know, will turn his hand to anything. Indeed, the innovation on Australian farms and of Australian farmers is enormous. Yet an attitude exists in Australian industry that we must leave research and development to those overseas. In

Australian industries too few people are taking punts on research and development. Certainly, too few entrepreneurs are taking advantage of existing research to create new industries. It is up to government- certainly it would be a function of a Labor government- to encourage both research and development on the one hand and the entrepreneurial activity arising out of that research and development on the other hand.

Widely divergent sources agree that industrial research and development is insufficient in Australia. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has strongly urged Australia to increase its industrial research and development efforts. The same conclusion was reached by the Jackson Committee which inquired into policies for the development of manufacturing in Australia. The report of the Australian Science and Technology CouncilASTEC as it is called- concluded in its report of June this year as follows:

  1. . industrial research and development is not strong in this country and for many years we have depended to a great extent on imported product and process technology.

Whilst Australian companies recognise the importance of industrial research and development, they often find it difficult to provide the necessary finance from their own resources. Industrial research and development is expensive, particularly because development costs often greatly exceed the cost of research. Moreover, the time before which economic return for research and development can be expected is usually about five to 10 years. The net result is that few Australian companies are willing and financially able to undertake research and development on possible innovations unless the risk element is small. It is clear that so-called free enterprise alone has not been able to provide an adequate basis upon which internationally competitive industries might develop in Australia. Those who examine this whole field rationally and objectively must come to the conclusion that government involvement is required and is vital. Thank goodness for the CSIRO because it has provided that government involvement in this very important field.

Basic involvement by the national Government in research and development generally has been, of course, through the CSIRO. But it has also been through the defence laboratories and through academic institutions. Expenditure in these areas now exceeds $350m per annum. The allocation to the CSIRO is about $140m. However, there have been limitations to the contribution which the CSIRO has been able to make to industrial research and development. The basic weakness has been the Organisation’s lack of attention to the development stage in the research and development process. Until now the CSIRO has been fundamentally concerned with basic research.

There is a feeling among people with whom I mix that perhaps this is wrong for such a small country as ours with only 14 million people; that we ought to be relying more on larger countries for basic research, and that we should be much more proficient at applying that basic research for our own needs in industry, not only manufacturing industry but also primary production industry. I did put this question, for instance, to the chairman of ASTEC the other day and he told me that indeed there was need for basic research in any country in order to stimulate the research community generally if it was to have the applied research required for its particular needs. Perhaps we should be looking at the proportion going into basic research and the proportion going into applied research, realising that the basic research is a field of larger more developed economies with larger populations than our own.

There is a big jump from this basic research to marketing a finished product or a process. That jump of course is the applied research. This development stage typically consumes about 80 per cent of the resources necessary to take an idea from its inception to a finished product. A further problem was that the criterion employed by CSIRO has been scientific excellence. Therefore, research activity did not have to relate to market need. This contrasts with the Japanese experience where they have contributed almost nothing to basic technology, but have been very successful in using the findings of international basic research. Japan, as we all know, has an enormous economy compared to our own, yet I believe- I cannot prove it because I do not have the figures before me, but they should be worth researching- that if one looked at the proportion going to basic research vis a vis applied research and development in a country like Japan and compared it with what we are doing here, one would find less basic research being done in Japan per capita than in this country. That is ridiculous because Japan has the resources, the spare resources, to put into that basic research.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! What is worrying me a little from the point of view of the Chair is the honourable member for Adelaide’s repeated comment about research and development which, as he knows, are the duty of another Act. The Bill before the Chair as I see it concerns CSIRO.

Mr HURFORD:

– We have a cognate debate. The whole purpose of this Bill- not only the statement about CSIRO- is to widen the purposes of CSIRO into the industrial field as well.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed. The development angle is covered by other legislation as the honourable member for Adelaide knows.

Mr HURFORD:

– Yes, but I hope you will agree that the general thrust of this statement and the general thrust of this Bill relate to the development and research that are going on in this country. The Birch Committee recommended changes to the functions of CSIRO to reduce some of these problems, with many of the changes being implemented in this Bill. The main change is to encourage CSIRO to process more patents and develop ideas to the operational stage. It could well be a developmental stage. Also, an important thrust of clause 6 of the Bill is that it is now CSIRO ‘s duty to ensure that it transfers its research to Australian industry, and that is the direct answer to your doubts as to the relevance of my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker.

However, these revised functions will also involve CSIRO in more development work. Yet a look at the latest Budget estimates indicates that only a mere $350,000 is being put aside for the Organisation’s task of developing processes and products to potential application stage within industry. In overall terms, CSIRO ‘s budget has been increased by only 6 per cent in money terms, indicating a static or falling allocation in real terms. In addition, staff ceilings have been reduced by a further 50 in the latest series of cuts, all at a time when CSIRO is having greater demands being placed on it. The most challenging power conferred on CSIRO by this Bill is in proposed new section 9AA (b) which will enable the Organisation to join in the formation of a partnership or company for the purpose of the commercial development of a discovery, innovation or improvement which is the property of the Organisation. This is another aspect of development, as you would readily realise. It has been thought that such an option had not been available to CSIRO hitherto and thus by putting this clause in the Bill it is now explicit that this can happen. It comes to mind, of course, that we are fortunate through Labor legislation that the Australian Industry Development Corporation was able to be used in a similar way in setting up INTERSCAN to take advantage of research which took place in this country, and the development of that research we hope will lead to many new jobs being created.

However, it is important for us to note, as did the Birch Committee itself, that changing the role of CSIRO would not solve the industrial research and development problem in Australia. What is also required is that there be changes in the private sector’s approach to the question of industrial research and development. It is most important that leadership be given by an active government to ensure that such changes in attitudes do take place. The industries in Australia which have higher than average potential rates of technological change, almost invariably have the same characterists. I would like to list those characteristics as follows:

  1. They are reasonably oligopolistic in nature- in other words, a very few companies are involved;
  2. they have a substantial degree of foreign ownership and control- usually more than two-thirds in foreign hands;
  3. they have higher than average levels of tariff or quota protection or both;
  4. they are the major employers of labour in virtually each industry sector and in manufacturing industry in total; and
  5. even though they absorb a large proportion of research and development grants, their level of research and development is comparatively small on a world basis and, as a result, they are substantially and increasingly dependent on transfusions of technology from their affiliated parent companies overseas.

These characteristics of these particular companies and these sectors represent many of the reasons why an expanded research and development function by CSIRO is unlikely to change the research and development intensity of Australia’s major corporations. It has been observed by many economic analysts that relatively smaller corporations have a greater propensity to innovate than the larger, more mature corporations, and this, of course, has been observed, as a student like yourself would realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report. As you would realise, as the successor to the ‘Modest Member’- and I know you are taking a similar interest in those IAC reports- these particular companies are not very well recognised as ones that are putting a lot of resources into research and development. A significant improvement in the international competitiveness of Australian manufacturers in manufacturing products is dependent in part upon a substantial improvement in the industrial technology- both product design and production processes- of large corporations to which I have referred.

If the largely foreign owned corporations which dominate our manufacturing industries were willing to import the latest design and production processes from their overseas affiliates, Australia’s technology lag would be largely offset. It is the job of government to ensure that there is more focus put by all of the Australian manufacturing community, but in particular by the larger corporations, on research and development. Let us use the technological developments of the overseas affiliates or parent companies of the multinational corporations to a greater extent than we do to get some greater return than we do from the fact that they are multinational corporations. It is seldom if ever the case that we have tapped these overseas sources in the way we should have done. The necessity for research to be physically and clearly linked to the development process, the commercially realistic desire for a corporation to release and test its products in its home market, the economics of mass resources that accrue from centralising its research and development function at the parent corporation’s location, and the national inclination to maximise exports from the home country rather than from the subsidiaries country except where much lower cost production can be achieved such as in low labour cost countries, all combine to limit the siting of research and development in Australia by these foreign owned corporations. We have to have more intestinal fortitude and more government leadership to ensure that that is not so and that we get more research and development here. But the solution, as I have indicated earlier, is not to rely entirely on the CSIRO. Other leadership is required.

The CSIRO is unlikely to achieve any developments regarding consumer durable products in which I, coming from Adelaide, am particularly interested. Such development requires a very close relationship between the marketing, production planning, investment analysis and research and development functions of a corporation. Business history is littered with the bones of great inventions that failed commercially because of incorrect styling, the wrong price level, the wrong market timing, the wrong level of investment to support either a competitive cost of production, or the failure to follow through to the development into the second or third generation of design.

Equally, the CSIRO is unlikely to achieve any development of major capital equipment products for the reasons I have just outlined. Such development requires the very long term commitment of both the corporation and its specialised staff to particular products. The classic example would be, of course, aircraft design but equally it applies to production machinery, large scale telecommunication equipment such as telephone exchanges, and shipbuilding. Where the CSIRO has excelled is in plant biological, rural chemistry and treatment processes for primary products. It could successfully ‘forward integrate’ into equipment and products design to support such research. It also has the proven capacity to design small to intermediate sized scientific equipment. But it is unlikely that the CSIRO will obtain any significant improvements in the degree of acceptance by the larger foreign-owned corporations and its potential for facilitating research and development by manufacturing industry should be seen as an indicative nature or a leadership nature indicating the direction we should take and showing other Australian based corporations what can be achieved by concentrating on a relatively few projects that not only have world market potential but also are economically suited to our industry and market structure.

Therefore, the fostering of research and development in Australia must be seen by the national government much more as a marketing program than as merely the provision of funds for research through an expanded role of the CSIRO. But these initiatives will not overcome the major difficulty facing manufacturing industry, namely that the foreign controlled companies that dominate many sectors of industry in terms of output and employment prefer to operate at a lower technology level to their overseas parent company behind a tariff or quota barrier. The declared or external profitability of these corporations is much lower than their integrated profitability because their internal profitability is enhanced by tax-free repatriation of substantial technology, licensing fees and the purchase of equipment, materials and components from their overseas affiliates at above normal world prices. Yet the Government’s policy towards industrial research and development in the private sector does, I regret to say, ignore these realities. In my view, it is only when these factors which I have outlined are taken into consideration that adequate policies for improved industrial research and development will be formulated.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as you indicated earlier, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 provides for many of the grants involved in this field. It is so much related to this debate that I am bound to point out that in the 1978-79 Budget Speech it was announced that the Government would amend the Act so that, firstly, current maximum rates for grants payable would be raised from 25 per cent to 50 per cent of eligible expenditure, secondly, the maximum grants payable to individual companies would be increased to $25,000 for commencement grants and to $500,000 for project grants, and thirdly, the provision of special funds to support major industrial projects which are considered in the national interest. It was assumed that these three elements would be contained in another Bill to come before this Parliament to amend that Act. I am glad that the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay), who is sitting at the table, is noting my remarks because I would like him to tell me or to bring it to the attention of the Minister who is to reply in this debate so that I can be told why the announcements in the Budget have not come to fruition. It seems to me that it would have been very appropriate to have included such a Bill in this cognate debate. There must be some reason why such an amending Bill is not before us.

Until a national government adopts policies directed at encouraging the rapid diffusion of latest technology through Australian industries by a combination of a number of means then I believe that we will not be maximising our opportunities. Let me just go through what those means are. The first is selective grants. We need better machinery to ensure that such selections are made because across the board or gunshot ways of giving this sort of assistance means that nobody gets enough. I believe that we have got to grasp nettles and be more selective. The second means is that I believe that negotiation in conjunction with major government purchasing contracts should take place. Thirdly, we should be seeking partnership developments between overseas companies with a technology role suitable for Australian industries and Australianowned companies. By this I mean that only when overseas companies provide wider access to thencurrent technology and Australian participation in their research and development programs and consequent siting in Australia of production of discrete products for those overseas companies’ international markets will any real step be made towards remedying the state of neglect into which Australian industrial research and development has fallen.

So Utopia has by no means been reached in this field under this legislation or indeed in any other measure that has been announced. We need much more help for research and development in particular. If we are to return to full employment we must put a good deal more emphasis on industrial research and development. I hope that with those remarks and with that sort of prodding we will find more legislation coming through this Parliament, more leadership from government which will lead to that improved industrial research and development on which more jobs will be built in order to reduce the shocking unemployment level which this country is suffering under the Fraser Government at the present time.

Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare

-Tonight I would like to take an overview of some of the activities of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation not only in an historical perspective but also in a current perspective. I should like to talk also about where this Organisation might be heading in the future. Before I do I would like to comment on the legislation that is now before the House and the statement that was brought down earlier this year following the inquiry by the Birch Committee into the structure, functions and future roles and purposes of the Organisation. This, of course, was the first major examination of the CSIRO since 1949, at which time a new Act was incorporated to establish the CSIRO as we now know it. Of course the history of the Organisation goes back much further than that. It replaced the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research which was established in 1926. There has been 50 years plus of extremely efficient, dedicated and capable service by that Organisation and its predecessor to all aspects of industry in Australia.

The legislation before this House at the moment gives effect to many of the recommendations from the Birch Committee of inquiry. The CSIRO is in many ways the envy of the world in that, as a single statutory body largely financed by government, it has with the necessary degree of independence been able to embark on major research programs and major research efforts that have in general been most applicable to the industries that the CSIRO has served. I think that this places it in a rather unique situation. It is a large organisation, employing a staff of some 7,000 in various categories. It has experienced the creation of a multiplicity of new divisions. At the moment there is somewhere in the vicinity of 35 to 37 separate research divisions within the Organisation. At present it operates on an annual appropriation of some $140m from the Commonwealth Government.

The Bill and the statement to which it gives effect essentially broaden the powers, functions and responsibilities of the Organisation. The Bill provides for a revision of the management structure by reducing the size of the Executive and changing the structure to co-ordinate the large number of divisions that have grown up to form six institutes which broadly incorporate similar types of divisions with similar research aims and aspirations. Most importantly, it further develops the statutory mechanism for the provision of advisory councils to advise the Executive of the Organisation as to the needs, requirements and demands of industry. It does this also in association with individual State advisory committees.

One point about this legislation that appeals to me is that the advisory councils and advisory committees will have separate staffs and separate executives from that of the Organisation. Likewise the legislation provides for consultative mechanisms whereby matters pertaining to the internal organisation of the staff and the Organisation can be discussed in a formally established Consultative Council. Further, the legislation provides that a policy statement shall be handed down in each annual report clearly outlining the objectives of the various research programs and, I would hope, clearly outlining their applicability to the industry they serve. I think that this is an important development in that until now there has not been a requirement within the old Act that the Organisation must clearly and regularly determine its policy areas and the objectives of its research programs.

The Bill provides also for the collection and interpretation of a wide variety of information and its dissemination to the Australian public and to Australian industries. One aspect that I particularly like is the means by which the Organisation can more easily co-operate, become involved with and in fact form companies and partnerships with the private and commercial sectors. This is one means by which I am sure the Organisation will be able to maintain a close link and liaison with industry.

The Organisation’s major role remains as it was and that is to be an organisation that is concerned basically with physical and biological research and with much lesser emphasis on economic research, research into social areas and research into human biology and human medicine. Furthermore, the basic thrust of the Organisation remains in that there shall not be a readily obvious direction by the Government, through Ministers, as to the direction of research programs undertaken by the Organisation. That is to be left to the Organisation. I think that the track record of the CSIRO shows that it has been a very wise move not to interfere overly with the objectives and directions of its research programs.

My association with the Organisation is marginal. The radio telescope at Parkes is in my electorate. It is a rather unique facility. It is the largest fully-steerable radio telescope in the world- at least it was at the time it was constructed- and it has been at the forefront of some interesting and exciting discoveries in the fields of radio electronics and astronomy. The research into quasars and pulsars that has been undertaken at Parkes has had profound effects on that area of scientific research. I understand that it was at Parkes that some of the organic molecules that exist in interstellar gas clouds were first identified. This discovery opened up many areas of conjecture as to whether life exists in other parts of the universe. At a more pragmatic level the development of low noise and highly screened amplifiers has assisted organisations such as the Australian Telecommunications Commission to develop transmitters that may assist in bringing telecommunications to everybody in Australia. I must say also that the telescope at Parkes has one of the most brilliantly conceived and executed public relations exercises that I have ever seen. The audio visual program which is provided for the benefit of interested persons and tourists is the most magnificently organised and portrayed exercise I have seen.

Of course, the CSIRO is concerned with more than just astronomy. It is very much concerned with energy research- not only the new frontiers of solar energy but also some new looks at old systems, particularly the production of oil from coal by various means, and energy conservation. Another major spin-off from the CSIRO ‘s fundamental pure research has been the exciting development of the new microwave landing system for aircraft, the InterScan system, which has been readily accepted by the majority of the countries of the world. That to me is an example of the value of the Organisation, particularly of the way in which the Organisation can collaborate with other departments and agencies, hopefully on a financially acceptable basis, in developing innovations which will win world-wide recognition.

In closing I refer to a subject that concerns me a little. Within the inquiry’s report it is indicated, albeit in a rather quiet fashion, that the emphasis hitherto shown by the Organisation on agricultural and biological research should be reviewed. I read this to mean that there should be some diminution of the Organisation’s efforts in this area and that perhaps it should be handed over more to the State departments of primary industry and agriculture. I want to express some concern on this subject. Rural industry has supported the CSIRO for many years, largely through the collection of levies for the operation of the research programs that affect rural industry. I think that that has been a satisfactory arrangement. It is also a financing arrangement which to my knowledge has not been applied on a large scale to other industries, particularly secondary industry. I think that it would be unfortunate indeed if the levies collected through rural industry for research into rural industry were not as fully utilised as they have been in the past.

The CSIRO also has an independent capacity to conduct rural research into various areas of rural industry. It has an independent capacity which to some degree the State departments do not have. Furthermore, I would point out that rural industry as such, being a fragmented industry and an industry that is still largely dependent on family farms and farmers, does not have the capacity itself to conduct the research that is necessary whereas in so many areas of secondary industry and mining there are large corporations which already have a large research and development input. I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the major breakthroughs and innovations in rural industry that are attributable to the CSIRO. These in no mean degree have allowed rural industry in Australia to progress and to compete on world markets with many of our products. The whole of the boom in northern Australia and Queensland in particular is largely attributable to the development of new species, management systems and breeds that has been undertaken by the Division of Tropical Pastures, the Division of Animal Production, the field stations, the large animal research laboratory at Rockhampton, the field station at Belmont and the development of new breeds and strains of sheep by the Division of Animal Genetics. Likewise at the other end of the continent- Victoriathere have been major advances in fodder conservation, again largely attributable to the CSIRO ‘s research input.

The Australian National Animal Health Laboratory, which is financed by the Commonwealth but administered by the CSIRO, again provides a new facility which is most essential for Australia in view of her isolation and dependence at present on diagnostic facilities overseas, particularly in relation to exotic viruses and bacteria. Furthermore, the CSIRO is involved in areas that seldom become obvious to the general public. It has conducted very substantial research into forest management, the behaviour of fires, fire hazards and buildings- for example, the role of radiata posts and end structures in fencing and new fencing methods. It has been involved in a whole host of things.

Let us not forget some of the major advances that were made by the CSIRO in the past. I refer to the entire development of the 90-mile desert area of South Australia, and to a lesser extent deserts in Western Australia, where, through trace element research, production of pastures and animals has been vastly improved. The story of myxomatosis and rabbits is almost legendary in this country although, again, it is seldom reported. I also refer to the work that CSIRO did for the sheep industry in Australia on all the chemical and genetic aspects of blowfly strike. Further, I refer to developments in wool processing and wool textile technology which nave led to major innovations in scouring and textile research, particularly in the case of woollen garments. These developments have given us a very real competitive edge in world markets.

One could go on at much greater length to demonstrate the significance of CSIRO and the effect that that body has had, particularly on Australia’s rural industry. I do not believe that the research effort should be diminished in any way. I certainly believe that CSIRO has a role to look at other areas of research in industry, particularly as they may affect the level of employment of people already within an industry. I imagine it is quite legitimate for CSIRO to look at the effects of technology, automation and new techniques and processes in terms of industry output and employment opportunities.

Furthermore, I think the organisation has become more associated with some of the conservation issues and some of the broader social issues that presently concern people in our society. I find it significant that the cover of the CSIRO ‘s latest annual report is related to alpine ecology. This is an area that would not have been thought of a few years ago. I believe that the legislation before us is welcome. I am pleased to see that the Opposition will not oppose it in any way. I would like to conclude my speech by saying that I am delighted to see that independence of the CSIRO is being guaranteed. I hope that further funds can be incorporated into appropriations for CSIRO in the future. I certainly hope that the effort that the organisation has made in the area of rural industry research will not be diminished. I support this legislation.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-This is one of those motherhood debates in which I do not normally participate. Everyone is in favour of this legislation. It is difficult to get very critical about such institutions as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or motherhood. Nonetheless, tonight we are dealing with the CSIRO and not with motherhood.

The CSIRO is the dominant scientific institution in Australia. It is dominant for several reasons. This financial year it will spend over $148m from consolidated revenue and over $16m from industry committees and other diverse sources. By contrast, the Bureau of Meteorology will spend $37.6m and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission $22. Sm. The CSIRO is dominant, also, because it is the major institution employing scientists in Australia. Of a total staff of over 6,700 about 4,600 are professional research scientists or other technical staff.

Moreover, the CSIRO correctly claims to have a record of success in research and invention. As other honourable members have pointed out, much of the work of the CSIRO and its predecessor, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, has concentrated on solving problems related to Austraiian primary industries. More recently, it has demonstrated the ability to make useful, and often substantial, contributions in other fields. InterScan is the example which immediately springs to everybody’s mind as perhaps the most notable product of its research on an international scale. However, it is well to remember that the limited research of CSIRO on simple solar energy devices has led to the valuable development of flat-plate solar collectors for domestic and industrial water heating.

I have mentioned, briefly, just a couple of CSIRO ‘s scientific and technological successes. I have done so for a number of reasons. Firstly, I repeat the well-known fact that the Australian technical community has proved itself capable of excellent .and significant achievements. Secondly, the CSIRO is the major Australian case of direct participation by a government agency in the research and development process. Thirdly, there are clear lessons to be learned from both the strengths and the weaknesses of CSIRO ‘s record.

Historically, the organisation has made its greatest efforts in agricultural research. I agree with the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie) the previous speaker in the debate, that because of the difficulties involved as far as Australian agriculture is concerned it is important for the Government to subsidise significantly research in the agricultural area. It is easier for mining companies or manufacturing industry to pay for research which is relevant to the work in which they are engaged. As I have pointed out, CSIRO ‘s work in the agricultural area has been and continues to be necessary, extremely valuable and of high repute. But changes in the economy since 1950, and predictable future trends demand, as the Birch report makes clear, a greater emphasis on research and innovation relevant to Australian manufacturing industry.

The effect of CSIRO ‘s research emphasis has been to bias the whole of Australia’s scientific effort in favour of the rural sector. This is a result of its dominance of the nation’s research funding and capability. That is what makes a debate about the future of the CSIRO so important. So, at the risk of repetition, I again point out that the 1978-79 Budget Estimates reveal some curious, not to say contradictory, matters relating to policy and practice with respect to CSIRO. The Estimates reveal a marginal shift in appropriations to agricultural research and simultaneously away from manufacturing industry research.

What has happened is that a rational allocation of scientific resources, based on a sound assessment of the needs of Australia’s society and economy, has not been possible in the context of what people regard as a mean pennypinching Budget of which the Government is proud. I am not necessarily arguing for a dramatically expanded CSIRO appropriation. But because it does take time to redirect scientific effort, to reallocate funds, equipment and manpower, some real efforts should be made to support the research fields related to the vital manufacturing sector. To the extent that this has not happened, the Government’s sincerity about CSIRO ‘s future direction is in doubt.

A further matter raised by any consideration of the past experience of the CSIRO and, indeed, of any scientific research institution is the nature and extent of control over specific research activities. In announcing the Government’s response to the Birch inquiry’s recommendations on 11 May this year, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) concurred with the inquiry’s view that much of the success of CSIRO in the past can be attributed to a policy of leaving scientific decisions in the hands of scientists. Such a view is far too simplistic. Of course the scientific decisions must be left to the scientists but that usually is not the issue.

The question which is open to serious discussion is put in a rather more sophisticated way in the Australian national paper to the 1979 United Nations Conference on Science and

Technology for Development. The following comment was made in the paper:

A central problem confronting a government research organisation is how to create a climate in which creative and imaginative people can give full expression to their talents. The conditions necessary for this, and the often unforeseeable eventualities of research, do not always sit easily with government bureaucracy.

  1. A. Prior, in his 1968 study of the influence of the CSIRO on technological change in Australia, was unable to find any specific example of criteria used in the selection of research programs. He concluded that in the final analysis it was scientific excellence that determined their selection.

There will be an inevitable tension between the requirement that the CSIRO serve various national interests-be they industrial, rural or other interests- and the personal orientations of individual research scientists towards performing work of high standard. But it is a tension which, under the appropriate circumstances, can be resolved creatively. At the broad policy level the executive must be responsive to national needs. The strengthened advisory council mechanism will, I hope, be helpful in this respect. Indeed, it is quite proper that the Minister should be able to exercise considerable authority over the direction of the Organisation’s work, provided the Minister is responsible for his intervention. We therefore approve the Government’s action in accepting the Birch inquiry’s fourth recommendation, that is:

Ministerial discretion should be preserved in relation to programs . . . when ministerial discretion is employed it should be reported in the Annual Report.

That is one quite necessary component of a productive, useful and high quality CSIRO. The other component, of course, is a staff operating with high morale and constructive involvement in decision making. The Australian Capital Territory Society for Social Responsibility in Science states:

The first cause of reduced morale in some parts of the Organisation relates to the relative instability in the flow of the various sources of funds for research.

As the Society points out, a significant number of positions and projects is supported by industry funds. The reduced flow of these funds, in particular, recently in the wool industry, leads to reduced support for the industries which are experiencing hardship. The Society states:

Research workers in contributed funds find themselves resentful of others who are on Treasury budgeted projects, and so come to believe that the Executive regards them as second-class citizens’ of the Organisation.

The effects of reductions in industry funds are well illustrated in the latest Budget. At all levels- professional, technical, administrative and ancillary- the numbers of staff that are funded from these sources were cut. Overall, the 1977-78 industry supported staff numbers will be almost halved in 1978-79. What is more, this cut is not made up by the relatively small increases in positions that are funded from Consolidated Revenue. Undeniably, there will be a contraction in the Organisation’s total research activity as a result of reductions to its staff ceilings. This contraction will make it particularly difficult to redeploy existing staff and resources into new priority research areas. Expansion of research in various energy areas, ocean sciences and programs related to land and water resourcesidentified by the Australian Science and Technology Council as leading fields for increased future work- will come about only if some redeployment of resources is possible as a result of some unforeseen circumstance, some accident of good luck.

A second area in which staff morale could well have been improved would have been by the direct representation of staff on the executive of the CSIRO. Such an eventuality was provided for by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) when he was the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs in 1975. Its implementation was prevented by the actions of the then Governor-General on 1 1 November of that year. As my colleague Senator Button has pointed out, staff motivation is particularly important in bodies with creative functions. Involvement in management decision making would help motivate the CSIRO ‘s officers. This is especially the case when there is some feeling amongst its staff that too few scientists will be involved in the executive. Whilst we do not oppose the introduction of a consultative council, we point out that a more direct say by staff in the Organisation’s management would be preferable.

There is a third area in which more concrete action by the Government is desirable. This area is related to staff interchange with other institutions. The second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann), in referring to the CSIRO ‘s contribution to the training of research workers, proposed little more than a continuation of past practices, a business-as-usual approach. Similarly, whilst the Government, by way of the 1 1 May statement of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), agreed that secondment of staff between the CSIRO and universities should be encouraged, there is little to suggest the practical implementation of such a policy. There seems to be a strong possibility that business-as-usual will continue here too. The Birch report states:

Despite generally expressed opinions of desirability, little seems to have happened in relation to staff interchanges.

The inquiry identified a number of impediments to staff exchanges, including problems associated with the transferability of superannuation, lack of recognition of work done elsewhere and costs in terms of decreased promotional opportunities. The amendments to the Science and Industry Research Act which we are now considering do nothing to overcome these problems. I emphasise that it is particularly important that with the prospect of limited, if any, further expansion in the CSIRO and the tertiary education sector, there must be opportunities to permit and encourage the frequent infusion of new ideas into the CSIRO. Staff secondments and exchanges obviously are beneficial to the CSIRO and other research organisations from this point of view. It is disappointing that the Government seems to have left this matter at the level of vague good wishes and hopes. Real barriers must be broken down, and we would expect some firm action to do so.

The Government has left the future of the CSIRO in several other areas undecided or confused. I refer, firstly, to the promise made by the Minister on 1 1 May to consult his colleagues who were responsible for national development, industry and commerce, finance, and productivity on developing methods of undertaking tactical problem-oriented work in support of manufacturing industry. If those discussions have taken place, we have yet to hear of the results, even though it is now over a year since the Birch inquiry reported and over six months since the Government’s response was announced. As my colleague, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has described in detail, this is the vital area where new initiatives are demanded, both in research programs and administrative arrangements. It is more than timely that this particular promise is honoured.

Secondly, there is the Government’s response to the inquiry’s tentative suggestion that research for Australian community interests should not exclude work in support of improved quality of life in areas such as environment, conservation and consumer services. The Bill that is before the House provides that the CSIRO ‘s functions, as outlined in proposed new section 9, will include furthering the interests of the Austraiian community. We assume that, in addition to the necessary contributions to assisting economic activity, this includes work in areas to which the Birch inquiry referred. The CSIRO is well regarded for what relatively little environmental research it currently performs. But when we seek evidence of an expanded interest in such areas we seek in vain. For example, the Minister’s speech refers to the Organisation’s national standards activities. The Birch inquiry specifically recommended an extension of this work into safety, pollution and performance standards. Especially those of us who are often worried by the shrill prophecies of gloom from some of the environmentalists, such as the obviously biased Australian Conservation Foundation, would appreciate some scientific and hopefully unbiased comments. Similarly, we would appreciate such comments on the question of hardwood and softwood forests and other issues. However, as I have mentioned on a previous occasion, the Budget prescribes a severe cut in staff and funding in real terms for the National Measurement Laboratory. If the information that has been provided to Senate Estimates Committee D is accurate, the CSIRO virtually has rejected this proposal of the Birch report.

Finally, I refer to the need that was identified by the inquiry for program evaluation and planning. Apparently concrete action is still being awaited on this matter too. There is still a dearth of detailed cost-benefit studies of government investment in CSIRO research, one which is not overcome by the Birch report. Where the expenditure of public funds in favour of specific firms or industries is involved, this is both necessary and valuable. Such studies which have been conducted in the past, especially in the United States of America and Britain, cast serious doubts on the orthodox belief in the linear model of innovation, that is, that basic research led, through invention and innovation phases, eventually to new products or processes and thence to improved economic and social wellbeing. Whilst this belief is now not universally held, it needs to be emphasised that where technological innovations are sought, it is not sufficient to let the scientists simply have their heads. J. P. Shelton recognised this problem in 1 965 when he wrote:

When CSIRO research was extended to areas of interest to Australian secondary industry, it was expected that publication of the results in the scientific press would be sufficient to ensure that industry would put these results to practical use. Experience over a number of years showed that mere publication of research results did not lead to their expected application in industry. It is now recognised that the functions of CSIRO include taking active steps to promote the application of its research results in industry, so that the community will receive the maximum benefit.

I repeat that this statement which is specifically about the CSIRO was made in 1965. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long- over 13 years- to get some firm institutional action to achieve the necessary degree of Organisationindustry co-operation. The community’s perception of what is practical to expect and useful to accept from science has matured and become better informed since the last reorganisation of CSIRO 30 years ago. The Birch report is by no means a radical critique of the past performance or present structure of the CSIRO. Moreover, the Government’s response has been, in certain areas, less positive than is necessary to reorient the effort of the Organisation in directions more appropriate to future needs. I hope that we shall soon see firmer action along the lines the Opposition has indicated.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-The legislation now before the House, the Science and Industry Research Amendment Bill, flows from a Government decision to ask three eminent persons- Professor Arthur Birch of the Australian National University, Sir Cecil Looker and Mr R. T. Madigan-to act as a committee of inquiry to report upon the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. As a result of their inquiry, Australia has achieved perhaps the most intense investigation into a science and research organisation that has ever occurred in any country. On 1 1 May this year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) informed the House of the Government’s decisions concerning the recommendations in the report of the independent inquiry into the CSIRO. The Bill we are now debating is designed to provide the appropriate legislative authority for the reorganisation of the CSIRO and the other elements of the Government’s decisions which were announced on that date.

The CSIRO manages to combine a high level of theoretical scientific work with a high level of practical application of the technology that arises from that scientific research. Certainly, the CSIRO has a long and distinguished history in Australia, with a fine record of achievement over SO years in many scientific fields. In his remarks earlier this evening the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie) referred to a number of significant achievements which are to the credit of CSIRO. He referred particularly to the work it has done for the benefit of primary industry.

It is worth noting that interest had been expressed in the establishment of a body similar to the CSIRO from the time of the inauguration of the first Federal Parliament in 1900. Several attempts were made over the first 25 years of Federation to establish such a body but each attempt foundered. However, following a conference that had been set up in 1925 by the then Prime Minister, Mr Bruce, in 1926 the Science and Industry Research Act was passed establishing the basic framework for the body which eventually became the CSIRO. Some 50 years have passed since then and throughout that period there was no extensive inquiry into the operations and the underlying principles of the CSIRO until the Birch inquiry was establishedAs I have said, it was some 50 years before the Government of the day decided that such an inquiry was necessary and that the operations and basis of the CSIRO should be put under extensive review.

The Birch inquiry represents one of the great milestones in the development of a national science policy in Australia. The Bill we are debating this evening is a response to the Government’s decision on 122 recommendations in the Birch report. It is evident from the Bill that the Government has studied each of the 122 recommendations in some detail and given a considered response to each one of them. The Bill is the result of a most comprehensive review of the Organisation’s performance and of its enabling legislation and the Government’s study of that review.

The amendments which the Bill contains have three principal aims. All of these are directed towards creating an improved framework wrixon will assist the Organisation to continue to serve the nation well in the years ahead and to optimise the benefits to the Australian people that can be derived from national government financed scientific endeavour. Firstly, the Bill broadens and .modernises the functions of the Organisation and invests it with the powers necessary to execute those responsibilities. Secondly, provision is made for a revised managment structure, involving a governing body of reduced size which will be able to concentrate on policy issues, and the establishment of up to six institutes within which the organisation’s scientific research and other related affairs will be conducted. Each institute will be formed by combining several of the Divisions of the CSIRO which conduct the operational activities under the existing Organisation. Each institute will be under the leadership of a distinguished scientific manager. Thirdly, the legislation establishes enhanced statutory advisory machinery to provide the governing body with high-level advice on national needs and priorities with respect to scientific research. It should be noted that the Bill maintains the Organisation as a single statutory entity which will continue to be financed in the main by annual parliamentary appropriations.

The main role of the CSIRO is to carry out scientific and technological research for the purpose of assisting all sectors of Australian industry, furthering the interests of the Australian community, and contributing to the achievement of Austraiian national objectives and the performance of the national and international responsibilities of the Commonwealth. This research will continue to be undertaken by the Organisation almost exclusively in the fields of physical and biological sciences. Basically, the functions of the Organisation have been preserved without significant change.

Generally, it is fair to conclude that the Bill accurately reflects the recommendations contained in the Birch report. As I mentioned, clause 6 of the Bill provides for the creation by the Executive of up to six institutes. The scientific research and related activities will be carried out in these institutes. Each institute will be headed by a senior scientist with the title of director, who will have responsible to him the heads of particular research activities which will form part of each institute. The main role of the institute directors will be research management and co-ordination. However, they will also actively participate in the decision-making processes of the Executive. The establishment of these institutes will overcome the problems created by the diversity of the divisions which previously operated. This meant lack of co-ordination in the operation of the CSIRO and fragmentation of its activities. I believe that the establishment of the institutes to coalesce the activities of the previous divisions will provide a far more effective framework for the operation of the CSIRO.

Another important aspect of the Bill is contained in proposed Part VII in clause 7 of the Bill, which establishes enhanced advisory machinery. There will be both a new Advisory Council at the national level and new State committees in each State. Both the Advisory Council and the State Committees will perform a vital role in the operation of the CSIRO. They will ensure that it will be kept in touch with changing trends within society. The importance of interaction between science and society must never be forgotten. In accord with the commitment given in the Prime Minister’s statement of 1 1 May, the Bill also provides for the establishment of a CSIRO consultative council. This council will comprise representatives of the Executive and of staff associations representing CSIRO officers. The council will examine and report to the Executive of the CSIRO on matters which generally affect or are of broad interest to the staff of the Organisation. It is important for the morale of the Organisation that working scientists feel they are getting a full say in the working of the CSIRO. In that regard, the initiative contained in the legislation is also of great significance.

Under clause 7 of the Bill, changes are also made to the annual report procedures. The Organisation’s future reports will include statements by the Executive on the broad policies pursued by the Organisation with respect to the determination of research program priorities and objectives and other elements of the Organisation’s functions. Of course, this is in accord with recommendation 100 of the Birch report. The Bill also repeals the official secrecy provision contained in section 3 1 of the principal Act. This is a further welcome initiative by the Government. It is in keeping with the notion of freedom of information to which this Government has given attention. Recommendation 41 of the Birch committee is as follows:

A Planning and Evaluation Advisory Unit should be established, responsible to the Deputy Chairman, to provide advice and assessment related to economic, industrial and social factors, to assist the Executive in its development of strategies and priority allocation of resources.

Once again, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his statement on 11 May indicated that the Government accepts this recommendation. I certainly commend the Government for that. Proper planning and evaluation of the activities of the CSIRO are important to its future operation, and the implementation of this recommendation will further complement the new annual report requirements. The proposed new section 34 brings us to the important question of the general responsibilities of the CSIRO. The Advisory Council is required to furnish advice to the Executive in connection with a number of matters. Recommendation 32 of the Birch report suggests that the following should be given prime consideration:

  1. broad questions of policy (scientific, technological, industrial, economic, social) required to provide effective scientific and technical directions for the whole organisation,-

I express some concern to the Minister representing the Minister for Science, the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) that in this aspect of the legislation the idea of the word ‘social’ has disappeared. It is of some concern to me to ensure that a body which is using a significant amount of government revenue has the capacity to make reports, recommendations and comments about the social implications of scientific research. I am not referring here to the questions of sociological or social sciences as such but rather to the fact that CSIRO should have the authority to give attention to the social implications of its scientific research. Until it is clear that the CSIRO retains a capacity to make public comment and engender public discussion about the social consequences of its scientific research and the responsibilities that will arise as a result of whatever other matter it happens to be undertaking in the research sphere, I believe that this legislation contains that defect. I hope that the Government will give attention to this matter and give an assurance that further consideration will be given to the social consequences of scientific research undertaken by the CSIRO.

One particularly important aspect of the Birch report highlights the need for strengthening the links between the CSIRO and manufacturing industry. In the report it is made very clear that there is considerable evidence, of a substantial gap between CSIRO and manufacturing industry. I understand that a number of submissions to the Birch inquiry urged that action be taken to close this gap. Basically, the problem arises from within manufacturing industry itself. Certainly, alterations to CSIRO alone will not solve that problem. For the Government to attack the problem effectively, complementary policies for action outside the area of CSIRO will be necessary. The present CSIRO contact with manufacturing industry, by and large, is with a large number of typically small firms. It would appear that a low level of research awareness exists within manufacturing firms. There is certainly a lack of awareness of what research has been carried out elsewhere and how even existing knowledge can be effectively applied. Hence, I support any moves that are directed towards strengthening the links between CSIRO and manufacturing industry. Of course, that is in accord with recommendation 66 of the Birch report, which states:

CSIRO should consider closely the question of contracting to industry as much as possible of its own engineering and related requirements.

The procedure for contracting out to industry will provide a catalyst for the strengthening of links between the CSIRO and manufacturing industry. That is a particularly important development. I support this concept of contracting out to the fullest extent where it is feasible. The effectiveness of the CSIRO is, to a large extent, dependent on the availability of resources. So long term financial planning is important to the success of CSIRO. Recommendation 71 of the Birch report states:

A three-year rolling program should be established for indicative planning purposes.

I urge the Minister to use clause 49 of the Bill to insist on this funding provision. This will allow for long term planning for research projects, which is important to the effective operation of the Organisation.

They are a few of the comments which I believe should be made on the legislation. I hope that the Government and, indeed, the Minister will give attention to the issues that I have raised. Overall, I believe the Bill shows once again, in the truest sense, that the Fraser Government is a government of reform. It is a government which carefully evaluates existing institutions and initiates reform where necessary. The CSIRO is an Australian institution of which we should all be extremely proud. This legislation will enhance its position in the Australian community. It is for that reason that I strongly support the legislation and commend it to the House. I believe that we should now move from what have previously been piecemeal attentions to worthy institutions towards the development of a national science policy and a national approach to scientific matters, which will put these items in their proper perspective and be of general benefit to the whole of the Australian community.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Construction · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– On behalf of the Government I thank all those honourable gentlemen who have taken part in this debate- the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) who has just resumed his seat, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie) and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). While the honourable member for Kingston is still in the chamber I will comment very briefly on one of the points which he raised in respect of the social consequences- I think they were the words he used- of this legislation. In doing so, I refer him to the debate in the other place on 24 October and to the comments of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) on that aspect of the legislation. He said:

I have stated previously that I believe that the average scientist today has a strong recognition of the social implication of the work that he is doing. If we were to decide that the Organisation should conduct a survey into the social consequences of its particular activities in each of its fields, we certainly would need to expand the Organisation to in excess of double the size that it is today.

He then went on to give a very good illustration of looking at astronomers when he was a small boy. He made the point that when people were looking at the stars then they did not think that 30 years later their work would produce the basis of our whole communications system. I think that that is a pretty good example. The point made by the honourable gentleman is certainly taken on board by the Minister and I refer him to Senate Hansard from which I have quoted.

I refer also to some of the remarks of the honourable member for Adelaide and, to a lesser extent, the honourable member for Prospect on this legislation. In fact, a large portion of what the honourable member for Adelaide had to say dealt with industrial research and development and not with scientific matters. He also made much of what an Australian Labor Party government would do. Although we do not want to intrude politics into this debate- the honourable member for Prospect described it as a debate akin to a debate about motherhood- the fact is that when we were in government in 1967 we introduced these incentives, and the current legislation was introduced in1976 in the term of the Fraser Government. The honourable member for Adelaide was really speaking in his capacity as shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think that he acknowledged that. If the honourable member watches what appears on the Notice Paper in the next few days he may find that he will have to use his speech again.

The Government announced in the Budget that certain amendments would be made to existing industrial research and development legislation. I think that it is appropriate to say something about this aspect because of the time devoted to it by the honourable member for Adelaide. Since the Budget an increase in the level of the commencement grants provided to encourage small and medium sized firms to gain an appreciation of the benefit of industrial research and development has been operating under administrative action. This matter was acknowledged by the honourable member for Adelaide but I do not think he actually realised that the increase is now operative. The existing 25 per cent of eligible company expenditure up to an annual limit of $15,000 has been increased to a level of 50 per cent up to an annual limit of $25,000 and provision has been made for the introduction of progressive settlement of the grants. Shortly we will be introducing legislation which will increase the level of the project grants provided to encourage firms to undertake research projects assessed to have a high technical and commercial merit from the existing 25 per cent of company expenditure, subject to an overall annual limit on grant payments to any company of $250,000 to 50 per cent, lifting the amount to $500,000.

Also operating by administrative action is the provision of funds to enable the undertaking of public interest industrial research projects directed towards encouraging the commercial development of important innovations by Australian industry. Shortly the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) will be introducing amendments which will simplify the procedures required of companies in making applications for grants to allow for reduced administrative effort on the part of the companies and the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board, particularly in respect of collaborative projects. I have put those comments on record because some of the criticism of honourable gentlemen was actually in regard to matters that were in the process of being developed.

The honourable member for Calare made a couple of points that I think I should pick up. He mentioned that he was very much in support of the philosophy of the CSIRO having the capacity to enter into a relationship with a commercial partner. I think I should place on record the conditions that must exist where the primary purpose is one of technology transfer. The partner, not the CSIRO, would be making the profit and the CSIRO would withdraw once its primary purpose is achieved. The honourable member for Calare also expressed some concern about research on rural and primary industry being reviewed. He said that he hoped that levies collected from the rural industries would be continued to be used on the rural industries. In that context I reassure the honourable gentleman by quoting again two parts of the speech of the Minister for Science. The Minister said:

I want to reinforce the point that no changes to existing practices, particularly where they are relevant to the wide range of industries, both primary and secondary, that CSIRO serves, will be undertaken without sensitive and full consultation with those concerned.

Later in the statement the Minister went on to say:

CSIRO will continue to compete for rural industry research funds but in the light of the inquiry’s findings funding from such sources will not be the major component of any broad area research program.

On behalf of the Minister and the Government, once again I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I appreciate the remarks that have come from both sides of the House. I thank the Opposition for giving its genuine and full support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2776

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Ministerial Statement

Consideration resumed from 1 1 May, on the following paper presented by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation- Ministerial Statement, 1 1 May 1978- and on motion by Mr Fife:

That the House take note of the papers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2776

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 August, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 has a simple and clear-cut purpose. The Bill is designed to amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 193S to provide exemption for goods for official use and not for sale by the Government of the Northern Territory. The first schedule of the principal Act of 193 5 sets out the various categories of goods that are exempt from sales tax. At the present time, item 74 of the first schedule provides exemption for goods for official use and not for sale only for Commonwealth and State government departments and Commonwealth and State government authorities which are completely controlled by and the expenditure of which is exclusively borne by those governments.

The Government of the Northern Territory was formed on 1 July 1978. Prior to that date goods for official use and not for sale by Commonwealth Government departments and authorities in the Northern Territory qualified for exemption under this provision. However, item 74 does not extend at present to goods for official use and not for sale by the Government of the Northern Territory which came into being on 1 July 1978. This Bill proposes to amend item 74 to bring the Government of the Northern Territory within its scope. The amendment to item 74 proposed by clause 3 of this Bill is designed to ensure that exemption will also apply under that item to goods for official use and not for sale by departments of the Goverment of the Northern

Territory and authorities which are completely controlled by and the expenditure of which is exclusively borne by that Government. This will place the Northern Territory Government’s departments and authorities in the same position as regards sales tax as Commonwealth and State government departments and authorities at the present time. The Opposition does not oppose this measure. It commends the Bill to the House.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I support the Bill. I am pleased that the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) has seen fit to read from the explanatory memorandum, which explains the purpose of the Bill very simply. The Bill brings the Northern Territory into Une with the Commonwealth and the States. I do not think there is very much else to be said about it. The Opposition has stated that it does not oppose the Bill. The Bill simply brings the Government of the Northern Territory, which assumed self-goverment on 1 July, into Une with the Commonwealth and the States. I would only hope that the Northern Territory Government will administer its responsibilities with due regard to those of use who live in the Northern Territory.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2776

ADJOURNMENT

Commonwealth Employment Service Office,

Northcote -Austraiian Broadcasting Commission: Parliamentary Broadcasts- The Parliament- Post Industrial Society- Religious Freedom: Worldwide Church of God- Motor Vehicle Industry- Invalid Pensions- Health Insurance

Motion ( by Mr Ellicott) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

-My experience since becoming the honourable member for Batman has led me to believe that my electorate, which is a Labor electorate, does not figure very highly in the priorities of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). The Northcote office of the Commonwealth Employment Service has been in need of new and extended premises for more than three years. Currently, it is hopelessly overcrowded with more than 20 staff being pressed into a space of no more than 93 square metres, which is a third of the rninimum space required for a staff of 20 people. Repeated efforts by my predecessor, Mr Garrick, and this year by me have drawn only correspondence from the Minister and the Department and not action. These appalling conditions would be condemned by the Department of Health if it were given the opportunity: There is a single toilet for the more than 20 employees, no conference or meeting room, and, of greatest concern, no provision for private interviews with the unemployed, despite the sensitive nature of matters subject to discussion. Currently several buildings are available for sale or rent within a matter of yards of the existing premises and close to the Northcote Town Hall. The limited time available to me does not permit me to canvass further the problems associated with the present office or the opportunities which might be offered by the office being relocated in renovated premises nearby. Suffice to say the whole matter is being handled in a thoroughly incompetent manner, which reflects both on the Minister and his Department.

Similarly, there has been a series of problems associated with the Northcote Community Youth Support scheme. It has suffered most of this year from the uncertainties associated with revised guidelines which recently have been severely criticised and discredited by a meeting held on 27 October between Mr Street and the State chairpersons of CYSS State committees from around Australia. I am pleased to say that it is now possible for CYSS to resume its program at Northcote, but only after great agonising on the part of the local committee of management and unemployed youth. The scheme is to be provided with substantially reduced funding also. It is to be hoped that the Minister will soon announce revised guidelines to remove the excessive restraints of the previous guidelines announced only in June. The Community Youth Support scheme will have value only if there is sufficient flexibility to meet variations in local conditions. Full consultation with the project committees and staff would have avoided considerable frustration with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which, under the present Minister, appears to be incapable of developing clear, effective and sensitive program guidelines.

On the same day that I received a telegram confirming funding for Northcote CYSS, I was informed that one of the electorate ‘s most highly regarded programs for unemployed youth- the West Heidelberg Youth program- is to lose its funding on 27 November. This program serves the unemployed youth of West Heidelberg in which, in April of this year, more than 50 per cent of the large number of unemployed were under 19 years of age. Currently the number unemployed is 1,380, of which more than 40 per cent are under 19 years of age. The program serves a number of young people who are having difficulty in establishing themselves in the work force. It provides educational and supportive programs which are designed to bridge the gap between school and work. The program has been carefully designed to teach skills within a supportive environment in which full account is taken of the need to work through the often serious problems of the young people, as well as ensuring effective working relationships with the local technical schools and employers.

As far as I can tell, the demise of the scheme flows from the Government’s concern at the open-ended nature of funding for the National Employment and Training scheme- that was last year’s policy- and the desire to restrict expenditure in this year’s Budget, despite ever-growing unemployment. As in the case of CYSS, there are new guidelines which, like the research on which they are based, are hidden somewhere in the bureaucracy. It would seem that programs like WHYP and, incidentally, the Vocational Employment Training scheme in Green Valley in Sydney have fallen foul of the new guidelines which emphasise, in an unrealistic manner, job skills to the exclusion of work orientation programs such as that developed in Green Valley in Sydney and West Heidelberg in Melbourne.

Both schemes are apparently highly regarded. A spokesman for the Minister said that the Green Valley scheme ‘is very costly, though it is also very effective. But the Government can’t fund everything’. Similarly, in Melbourne the organisers of the WHYP have been told that their scheme, which has placed many kids in employment- kids who had been long term unemployment risks- is highly regarded in the Department but that it must go because it does not meet the guidelines and/or ought to be the responsibility of the technical and further education institutions. However, Mr Watts, the Victorian Director of Technical Education, was quoted in Saturday ‘s Age as saying:

TAFE has neither the authority nor the resources to take over a large scale commitment to an outside organisation.

The new policy guidelines which I have seen, and which presumably the people of West Heidelberg have not seen, appear to provide much more emphasis on educational programs and to neglect the social or community work component which has been the essence of the success of WHYP. The emphasis on integrating education and community work components that is present in WHYP is not accidental, based as it is on substantial research carried out in West Heidelberg by the poverty inquiry. The program is established in line with recommendations of that inquiry.

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-I wish to refer to a matter which was mentioned by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) during the second reading debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79. Referring to business confidence in the Northern Territory- I have told him about this matter so he knows I am raising it- he said:

Watkins Ltd, a major construction firm, is pulling out of the Territory entirely. A second medium-sized construction company has gone into liquidation and several others are in dire straits. What this Government should have realised is that without adequate enterprise to support the Northern Territory as a State-

It is not a State, of course; it is a self-governing Territory- the main result of its self-government policy will be financial disadvantage to residents of the Territory.

I am not attacking the former Minister for what he said because I am certain, he being a very sincere man- I have said that before in this placethat he was given misinformation. I just say that he made that statement. I told him that I intended to criticise him and to have the situation righted in this place. What he stated is not factual. The Managing Director of Watkins Ltd, when referring to the statement made in the House of Representatives on 21 September about Watkins Ltd, a major construction firmthat is the statement I read- said:

Please be advised that this statement is totally incorrect and Watkins Limited never has or does not intend to withdraw from the Northern Territory now or in the future. The source of your information would appear to be totally unreliable.

I am attacking the unreliability of the information; I am not attacking the honourable member for Capricornia. People put out all sorts of furphies, as the Labor Party did in the Northern Territory during the last election campaign. There were all sorts of furphies about $15m in tax being sought by the present Northern Territory Government upon being elected.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is hard to believe.

Mr CALDER:

– It is very hard to believe. I take up the honourable member’s interjection. A Mr

Isaacs, who is now leading the Opposition, made such statements but I might inform the honourable member that they are totally incorrect. I thank the honourable member for his interjection. I simply say that the General Manager of Watkins states that these incorrect statements have done immeasurable damage to the business community in the Northern Territory. I simply say to the Labor Party and to the interjector who supports the misinformation which the Leader of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory seemed to purvey during the last election campaign that the matter was based on misinformation. I am putting the record straight. I told the honourable member for Capricornia that I intended to do so. He, to his credit, has replied and agreed that the information was incorrect.

Mr STEWART:
Grayndler

-Today the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings has been blacked out by a ban imposed by the New South Wales branch of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association. I do not intend to make comments on the rights or wrongs of the dispute between that Association and the Government. However, I am perturbed that a responsible industrial organisation- an organisation which ardently believes in freedom of speech and the rights of the media to report without fear or favour- should take action aimed not at the Government but at the Parliament. Whether or not the banning of parliamentary broadcasts causes any inconvenience to the general public, whether or not the broadcasts have the lowest or the highest listening audience, is not the point at issue. To me the alarming aspect is that Parliament is again the target of attack by people in the community who have a disagreement with the government of the day. I do not intend to deliver a sermon on the struggles of our forbears to establish and hold our democratic system of government. Those matters are well known to all of us in this Parliament and to most of the community. There can be few people in Australia who would prefer a totalitarian system of government to the democratic system of government, with all its faults, failings and frustrations, which we follow in Australia.

Parliament is the foundation stone, the cornerstone, the rock on which our system has been built, but in the past few years there has been an increasing tendency for groups in the community with an axe to grind over some decision of government to make the workings of Parliament the venue of their demonstration. The rights of the public to enter Parliament House with the minimum of inconvenience, to criticise Parliament, parliamentarians, governments and Oppositions, to demonstrate without undue inconvenience to other members of the public and to exercise their hard won right of a free and secret vote are too precious to allow them to be lost by the inaction of Parliament itself. This appears to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to be what is happening. Since February 1976 there have been no less than six incidents in this chamber in which members of the public have been involved. I will cite one or two of these incidents, but because of insufficient time will ask for leave to incorporate details ofthe ones I cannot cite.

On 19 February 1976 a woman walked from the Speaker’s Gallery on to the floor of the chamber. She was removed from the chamber and the building by the Deputy SerjeantatArms. She was subsequently reported to be ill. On 26 August 1976 demonstrators addressed the House from the public gallery. They were removed and then spoken to by the SerjeantatArms. On 4 May 1978 five young people in the public gallery took off their coats to display skeleton suits, stood up, donned masks and created a disturbance. They were also spoken to by the Serjeant-at-Arms and removed from the building. On 16 August 1978 a visitor in the public gallery threw pamphlets into the chamber and shouted out He was removed from the gallery, questioned by the Serjeant-at-Arms and police officers and allowed to leave the building. The last incident happened on 24 October 1978. There was another on 20 September 1978. It is details of those two incidents which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows- 20 September 1978- Visitor in Public Gallery threw pamphlets into Chamber and shouted out- removed from Gallery, questioned by Serjeant and police officers and removed from building. 24 October 1978-Visitor in Public Gallery shouted outremoved from Gallery, questioned by Serjeant and police officers, held until 6 p.m. and then removed from building.

Mr STEWART:

– In not one of those instances- and again today- was action taken by the Parliament to protect itself. I am unable to offer any solution to the problem except to suggest that the Presiding Officers and the leaders of all parties should urgently examine the situation to see what action Parliament can take to preserve its rightful place in a democracy. It matters not to me what the public thinks of individual members of Parliament or political parties, but I want them to uphold the dignity of

Parliament and to recognise the importance that our Parliament plays in our democratic system.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I want to draw the attention of the House to some important research work being carried out into basic structural changes which are occurring in advanced Western economies such as our own. Perhaps the most significant is the Nora report commissioned in 1976 by President Valery Giscard d ‘Estaing and which appeared in 1978 under the title ‘L’informatisation de la Societe’, published by Documentation Francaise. The authors are Simon Nora and Alain Mine, both senior public servants. They accept that France is well into the post industrial society, or the information society as some prefer to call it, in which an increasing share of the national economy will be devoted to the collecting, processing and dissemination of data, or ‘informatics’ to use the Nora report’s terminology. However, they conclude that there will be an enormous loss of jobs due to technological change, especially in the service sector of employment. They conclude that banking will lose 30 per cent of its employees in 10 years, with insurance and education similarly affected, and that the job creation promised by France’s seventh national plan is not likely to eventuate. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short report from the New Scientist of 8 June 1 978.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 2779

THE NEXT FRENCH REVOLUTION

by a correspondent, Paris

A French report, L’Informatisation de la Societe published on 19 May argues that one way of solving the problems arising from the ‘information revolution’ is to develop a new economic structure based on the recognition of internationally competitive and non-competitive economic sectors.

The report was requested in 1976 by President Valery Giscard d ‘Estaing, worried about the impacts of computers and telecommunications on French society and about the strategic importance of these areas for effective industrial operation. The report, mainly written by Simon Nora, a senior advisor in the Finance Ministry, was finally presented in January this year. But with legislative elections due in midMarch, January was an inopportune moment as among its conclusions were a prediction that the banking sector would lose some 30 per cent of its employees within the next 10 years because of automation. A similar rate might prevail in insurance companies, Nora said. Even in the state sector, organisations like the Social Security Administration would not lag far behind the private sector, despite ‘the lack of competition existing therein*. Such traditional job providers as the automobile industry would shed more jobs through the increasing role played by electronics in auto construction. The report also questioned the soundness of the ambitious objectives of France’s seventh national plan, warning that the planned creation of 215,000 manufacturing and 1,333,000 service sector jobs was severely threatened.

So the report, enthusiastically welcomed by international information sector experts for its far-seeing approach, despite its political implications, eventually saw French daylight towards the end of May with the election safely won by Giscard ‘s men. Blanket coverage in the French press discussed at length the social conclusions of the report and dwelt on recommendations for France to make sure she built up national independence in the information sector.

For Nora, the crucial sector is not just microprocessors and their vastly improved cost performance compared with mainframe computers or minis or human beings. The report includes extensive reference to this of course, but the important factor is seen as the combination of computers with telecommunications, satellite technology and broadcasting. In the long-range forecast section of the report, Nora describes how these together are going to bring about such important gains in productivity that the internationally competitive sector of the economy will diminish in its social importance. This will leave an economic structure with, on one hand, dying megaliths- the high-employment manufacturing industries- and a fermenting cauldron of small economically viable enterprises on which the responsibility of innovation and the creation of economic wealth in international markets will fall, and on the other hand a mass of socially orientated organisations concerned more with providing employment and cultural or social purposes than with making profits.

Apart from the economic impact of the information revolution, Nora sees its advent as a golden opportunity to increase the dialogue between the administrator and the administered. One concrete recommendation of the report is the creation of a ‘General Delegation of Administrative Reform’. If set up, the body will take apan current French administrative structures- which even compared with their British equivalents must be among the most stubbornly opaque in the developed world- and, using information technology, attempt to rationalise, decentralise and socialise government working.

French administration sources believe that a large number of the Nora report recommendations, unspecific though they are, will be followed by government action. The conclusions are due to be discussed by a select interministerial council over the next few months, major decisions coming maybe after the summer vacation.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-In Japan valuable work has been done by Dr Yoneji Masuda in his Social Impact of Computerization- An Application of the Pattern Model for Industrial Society’. To provide a graphic illustration of the changing patterns of society I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard his short table ‘Comparison of Information Society with Agricultural and Industrial Society’.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the House. In the United States, the Department of Commerce published in 1977 a study by Dr Marc Uri Porat called the Information Economy in which he concluded that since 1967 information workers, broadly defined, had received more than half of employee compensation and that by 1980 more people would be employed in the information sector than in all the other economic sectors combined. I draw attention to the pioneering work in Australia of Dr Shirley Smith of the School of Education at the University of New South Wales and, in particular, to her seminal suggestions on recurrent or lifelong education as a means of providing a socially useful and personally satisfying work alternative.

I want to thank the Statistical Service of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library which has prepared a table and an explanatory note illustrating the five-sector analysis of the work force which I proposed on 23 February 1978, reported at pages 164-168 of Hansard. I seek leave to incorporate the table and notes in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I thank the House. This should be read as supplementary to the foursector analysis given in my maiden speech. In Great Britain, Dr Jonathan Gershuny of the University of Sussex has written a major study entitled After Industrial Society! published in 1978 by Macmillan. He criticises Daniel Bell and other early post-industrial theorists for underestimating the impact of the new technology on employment, particularly in the services. Gershuny illustrates how technological change in the United Kingdom has hit employment in services even more seriously than in manufacturing- that people, for example, are buying more consumer durables and are consuming fewer services provided by people. For example, people are choosing to buy private cars rather than using public transport, or buying gramophones or colour television sets rather than going to live entertainment.

I think it is very important that we must steer a careful course between two dangers. The first is a facile optimism that the new technology means business as usual and that we do not need to plan for change and the second is a panicky Luddite over-reaction against the labour-saving implications of post-industrialism. Some government departments are merely whistling in the dark. Only this week, I was assured by some cheery senior bureaucrats- I refrain from naming their department- that new employment would be found in four areas: Food, wine, travel and cars. Universal experience, particularly with the fuel strike in Victoria at the moment, would suggest that this is an assinine assumption. There are a number of related social problems which could tear this nation apart, particularly the widening gap between the information rich and the information poor in which the unskilled become an intellectual proletariat; the problem we have to face where shorter working hours are offered with correspondingly lower pay which means, in effect, increased hardship for the poor; and growing competition for jobs which will disadvantage young people, women and migrants.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

Mr JULL:
Bowman

– I congratulate the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Stewart) for his contribution tonight. So far as the Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association ban is concerned, I would really like to know just what laws have been breached and whether any action can be taken. But that is not my purpose in rising tonight. One ofthe greatest freedoms that we enjoy in Australia is religious freedom- the right to worship as we see fit. Consequently the subject I am approaching tonight is probably quite a delicate one. It concerns an organisation called the Worldwide Church of God. I have been approached on two separate occasions by two different constituents in my electorate about problems that they or relatives of theirs have been having with this particular organisation in Australia. My research indicates that the Worldwide Church of God is based in California. It is headed by Herbert W. Armstrong and is well known to Australian radio listeners and television viewers through the appearance of his son, Garner Ted Armstrong, who

I believe has regular radio features and television features around Australia. I understand that Herbert W. Armstrong started the sect in the 1920s after he had gone bankrupt as some form of advertising agent in the United States. He had an allocation of some time on a small commercial radio station there and went into the business of religion. From my latest research that religious organisation is now a $60m a year business. The organisation has been operating in Australia for some time. I understand that about 7,500 people attach themselves to the Worldwide Church of God. Many of the people who seem to be attracted by this organisation seem, to me anyway- and from the research into this organisation in the United States the same would apply there- to be some of the elderly in our community and some of those who are not terribly well to do.

The point that I raise tonight is the system that is used by this organisation in raising funds. It is not uncommon for religious denominations to use the system of tithing for their fund raising campaigns. It would seem that Mr Garner Ted Armstrong, who conducts radio and television programs, makes an appeal at the end of each program to write to a rather anonymous Post Office box number in Sydney for free literature and a free magazine called the Plain Truth Magazine. It is Post Office Box 345, Sydney.

I have not been able to find out the office address of the Worldwide Church of God, but I understand it is established at North Sydney. When signing off a program, Garner Ted Armstrong suggests that people write to this Post Office box number to receive their free copy of the Plain Truth Magazine. Inside that magazine there is just a small notation which says: ‘The subscription to this publication has been paid for by a friend’. This seems to be the start of the psychology. Once a donation is made to that organisation it is followed up with a thank you letter, but if two donations are made within a six-month period the organisation then contacts the person involved and in a not terribly subtle way suggests that the person might like to tithe. After this goes on for a little while the person is asked to make another tithe, but the ultimate of course for members to be fully accepted into this organisation is to pledge some 30 per cent of their gross income. For pensioners that is a considerable amount.

The two cases in my electorate involve people who were trying to get themselves or their relatives out of this tithe system because frankly they could not afford to pay. I do not know what hold this organisation has on its clients, if we can call them that, but they find it very difficult indeed to get out of this tithing organisation. As I said, it is a $60m a year industry. It operates psuedo colleges in the United States in Pasadena and another place and also in England. Quite recently the organisation set up an ambassador college at Burleigh Heads on the Gold Coast in Queensland. At all these three places there are magnificent structures with most expensive fittings. Herbert W. Armstrong and his son Garner Ted Armstrong both operate private jets in which they manage to get around the world quite frequently. A recent investigation in the United States would indicate that a balance sheet of this organisation has never really been published despite the fact that it turns over some $60m a year.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Is it a registered charity?

Mr JULL:

– Not to my knowledge. My purpose tonight is not to condemn this organisation out of hand. It is to warn people to be very careful about getting themselves involved in an organisation such as this which I do not believe has really shown its true credentials.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I raise a matter which is of some concern and which the Government ought to clear up fairly quickly. I have noted during the last few days that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) has been reported to have made certain remarks in Japan about the future development of the Australian car industry. I also have noted that he has made remarks on the same subject suggesting that changes in the approach of Australian vehicle manufacturing companies and the components industry in Australia had to be undertaken in the near future.

The question that I raise is that this industry is one which has been subject over a fairly long period of time to considerable change in the mode under which it operates. Over the last six or seven years there have been almost continuous discussions over the future way in which the car industry would operate. At or towards the end of 1975, and reaffirmed in 1976, certain operating plans were laid down. Basically the plans of both the Liberal and the Labor governments were the same and supposedly they were to apply for eight to 10 years. The Minister is now creating uncertainty about the future of this industry, which is a long term planning industry, by making statements in Japan. Obviously he had had discussions with the Japanese car manufacturers and was repaying their hospitality and returning compliments by agreeing with their complaints about Japanese access to the Australian market.

The situation that concerns me is that long term decisions on investment in plant and manufacturing design and other aspects of the industry are due to be made in Australia in the very near future. Statements such as the Minister’s that indicate incorrectly that the Government is planning to interfere with the long term plans and bring the whole industry back into an uncertain and negotiated situation in which new plans may be devised or new approaches brought into operation will not do the industry or the stability of employment in the industry any good.

I think the seriousness with which the Government looked on the situation in this industry earlier this year is reflected in the fact that it made decisions relating to sales tax in the Budget which are before the House and to which I will not refer. The industry appears to have picked up somewhat although I think that may be a temporary aberration. Once the effects of the sales tax cuts are absorbed by the reduction which will obviously take place in trade-in values and the actual cost to the consumer of cars returns to normal, that bloom might fade.. My concern is that the Minister is bringing uncertainty into the long term future of the industry. He is making suggestions without putting forward proposals or indicating that the Government intends to do anything at all. That can only have the effect of either deferring decisions under discussion or likely to be taken by the industry in the near future or causing the companies to hold off preliminary planning for future development of their Australian components. I think that the Minister’s suggestions were made as a result of discussions and reactions to those discussions rather than as a reflection of Government policy.

I hope that the Minister will, if necessary, make a statement to the Parliament on what the Government’s intentions are regarding the plans and components industry relating to the motor industry. This industry is one of the bigger employers. It is most likely the biggest employer in private industry in Australia. Its condition certainly has major consequences for South Australia and also Victoria. Any uncertainty which is engendered because of Ministers making statements which may or may not have substance but which certainly at this stage do not reflect what has been Government policy over the last two years does no good to any one. This matter ought to be cleared up quickly and decisively so that the industry knows exactly where it stands.

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

Mr SHACK:
Tangney

– I draw the attention of the House tonight to what I consider to be an unfair anomaly relating to the payment of invalid pensions on the one hand to people who are blind compared with the payment of invalid pensions on the other hand to people who are incapacitated in some other way. I believe the situation to be based on an unwarranted distinction between blind people and people who are incapacitated in another way.

As all honourable members will know, an invalid pension is paid to eligible people who are either permanently blind or unable to work because they are permanently incapacitated. The anomaly is that when the pension is paid in respect of blindness is it free of an income test, but when it is paid in respect of incapacity to work for any other reason it is subject to an income test. Thus, a blind solicitor could be earning a commonly accepted salary for that position and also drawing an income test free invalid pension while the fellow who has been severely injured in a car accident and who is a quadraplegic- flat on his back- draws only a partial pension because his wife works. I do not want to be misunderstood on this point. No one would wish to argue against blindness. But it must be readily appreciated that blindness of itself does not constitute an incapacity to work. Many thousands of blind people are working in Australia today. On the other hand, I want to contrast that with the many thousands of generally incapacitated individuals who can never again hope to work in the Australian work force. Both groups are recipients of an invalid pension, yet one group receives it free of an income test while the other receives it subject to an income test I believe that honourable members will appreciate that the absurdity of this patently unfair situation is obvious and, in my view, deserving of immediate attention and resolution.

In calling for action I think that it would perhaps help if I were to try to explain how the anomaly came about. Blindness has always been a readily identifiable disability and one that has always elicited a great deal of public and personal sympathy, and rightly so. All honourable members can appreciate that. In the past governments have reflected this public feeling and blind pensioners have always been regarded as forming a special class. Blind people received pensions as far back as 1912. In 1954 the pension was made free of an income test. I think that two significant things have happened since that time. Firstly blind people now are rightly recognised as being able to contribute to the work force. We have got away from the workshop mentality that the only thing they were supposedly fit for was basket weaving. I congratulate the organisations for the blind which have worked to overcome that prejudice. Secondly, the number of invalids who are permanently incapacitated regrettably is increasing by thousands every year as a result of the carnage on Australian roads today. I believe that we need to bring the two situations into line. Of course, in trying to rectify the problem I do not want to advocate that we should take away something that is already being received by some people. Therefore, I suggest that all invalid pensions should be made free of an income test but that they be made subject to income tax. On the one hand, the benefit will be paid in recognition of a physical condition in an attempt to bring about horizontal equity. On the other, it will be made subject to income tax and be included as part of the taxable income in recognition of the fact that many recipients can and do work. This is distinct from the Budget initiative which was discarded- and rightly so in my view because it attempted to tax pensions which were subject to an income test in the first place. I am not suggesting that. I have written about this matter to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) on several occasions and in her last reply to me she advised that my views had been forwarded to the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped, which was considering the position in toto. I call on all honourable members to recognise this anomaly and to write to the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped so that it can be resolved.

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

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-The date of 1 November 1978 means to the health system what the date of 11 November 1975 means to democracy. It marks the beginning of the end. Some of the more insidious proposals still remaining from the ill-fated and illconceived August Budget of this LiberalNational Country Party coalition government were inflicted on the entire country in one fell swoop on 1 November. We were, of course, hit with the Vi per cent tax surcharge which, for some unspoken reason, we are paying at the increased rate of 12 over 7 even though the tax is being collected over eight months. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) has yet to explain that piece of numbers rigging. As well, on 1 November the entire country was thrown in a medical muddle.

I want tonight to draw attention briefly to two aspects of the confusion and unfairness of this Government’s ‘medi-muddle’. Firstly, it is clear now, as with most of the other ingenious, pennypinching contrivances of this Government, that those who can affort it the least pay the most for the Government’s mistakes. All last week my office was inundated with calls from angry and confused pensioners wanting to know why their contribution rates to health funds were rising so high, yet the coverage remained the same. Last week it was brought to my attention that the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia is requiring pensioners to sign up for two tables, P and Z, if they want cover for dentists’ and optometrists’ fees- ‘teeth and glasses cover’ as one pensioner to whom I spoke called it. Tables P and Z replace the old table R and naturally the cost of that cover went up. The monthly married rate went up as well. Because the Government has withdrawn its hospital subsidy of 15c a day single and 30c a day double the cost of intermediate ward cover has risen dramatically to compensate. Again the poor old pensioner suffers.

It is all the more annoying and upsetting for pensioners because these rises have taken place almost without publicity, whilst much media hoo-ha and ministerial breast beating has accompanied the fall in the costs of basic medical cover. The pittance of an increase which this Government is now handing to those pensioners who are lucky enough after the imposition of the means test to get an increase, and only once a year, has almost completely evaporated with these rises. This Government is so morally corrupt and so cynical that it would not surprise me if its callous indifference to the plight of the pensioners were based on the belief that they will be dead and buried by the time of the next general election in two years. That is not just my opinion; it is the near unanimous verdict of the pensioners to whom I have spoken and who have contacted my office in the past week.

The matter of health is as important to the old as taxation is to the workers and education is to the children. With that in mind, I am firmly of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the public generally and of the pensioners in particular that doctors should be allowed to advertise their services and fees. For too long free enterprise in the medical profession has simply meant the right for doctors to set their own rates for the services they provide. The time has come to extend this slogan so that patients or, if we like, consumers have the information to choose their doctors on the basis of their fees and services.

At the moment medicine seems to be a matter of buying a pig in a poke. If those doctors who bulk bill, do house calls or do not charge for repeat prescriptions were allowed to advertise those services and their rates I think that socalled free enterprise might gain some credibility in the medical profession. Of course, the forms of advertising would have to be more modified than the present forms in any of the other professions. Perhaps a list of services and charges set out on a sheet of paper of specified size could be displayed outside a surgery. Obviously, if things remain unchanged it will depend on luck whether patients have a doctor who bulk bills or house calls or have one who does not. Luck would be eliminated -

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2785

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Sinclair to move:

That legislation committees have power to meet during the sitting of the House on Wednesday,15 November 1978.

Mr Anthony to present a bill for an Act to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974.

Mr Sinclair to present a Bill for an Act to establish an Australian Dried Fruits Corporation, and for related purposes.

Mr Sinclair to present a Bill for an Act to provide for an equalization scheme in respect of the proceeds of sales of dried vine fruits, and for related purposes.

Mr Street to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1 975.

Mr Staley to present a Bill for an Act relating to applications for the grant or renewal of licences under the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942.

Mr Staley to present a Bill for an Act to terminate the extension of the Postal Services Act 1975 to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

Mr Staley to present a Bill for an Act relating to the grant of financial assistance to the States in connection with universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions.

Mr Macphee to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976.

Mr Fife to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain motor vehicles.

Mr Howard to present a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to Queensland.

House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

page 2787

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice

Attorney-General: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 1366)

Mr Lusher:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking for which the Attorney-General has responsibility.
  2. Are any funds appropriated in the Budget to any of these authorities, corporations or undertakings; if so, (a) what sum was appropriated to each during (i) 197S-76, (ii) 1976-77 and (iii) 1977-78 and (b) was the appropriation on one line or broken up into divisions.
  3. Who audits each of the authorities, corporations or undertakings.
  4. Under which Act of Parliament was each authority, corporation or undertaking established, and in what year.
  5. When was the most recent review or inquiry into each authority, corporation or undertaking carried out and the report made available to the Parliament and by whom was the inquiry or review carried out.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided, the following answer to the honourable member’s question: were circulated:

  1. 1 ) The name of each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking for which the Attorney-General has responsibility is:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Administrative Review Council

Australian Institute of Criminology

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation

Barristers and Solicitors Admission Board of the Australian Capital Territory

Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission

Commonwealth Practitioners Board

Copyright Tribunal

Courts- Martial Appeals Tribunal

Criminology Research Council

Family Law Council

Film Censorship Board

Films Board of Review

Institute of Family Studies

Law Reform Commission

Legal Aid Commission (ACT)

Legal Practitioners Admission Board (Northern Territory)

Legislative Drafting Institute

Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations

Office of Parliamentary Counsel

Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory.

  1. Details of funds appropriated in the Budget to each statutory authority, corporation or undertaking are as follows:
  1. Details of audits of each authority, corporation or undertaking are as follows:
  1. A Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security was established by Letters Patent on 21 August 1974. Mr Justice R. M. Hope was appointed Commissioner. Parts ofthe Reports relating to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation which the Commissioner recommended should be published were tabled in Parliament on 25 October 1977. No review or enquiry resulting in a report to the Parliament has been conducted in respect ofthe other bodies referred to in ( 1 ) above.

Banking (Question No. 1558)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. What are the major components ofthe item listed as other’ in ‘assets and liabilities of the Reserve Bank’ contained in the table entitled ‘Bank Liquidity and MoneyAnalysis of Changes’ of the Reserve Bank Statistical Bulletin.
  2. What have been the movements in these major components in each quarter since 1 January 1974.
Mr Howard:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. This series is derived principally from the ‘Weekly Statement of Central Banking Business’ issued each Wednesday by the Reserve Bank of Australia. It is derived asCapital and Reserve Funds plus Special ReserveInternational Monetary Fund special drawing rights plus other liabilities net of cheques and bills of other banks Bills receivable and remittances in transit loans, advances and all other assets plus rural credits advances to customers.
  2. For convenience the Reserve Bank of Australia has assembled details of movements in this series in tabular form which I have passed on to the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I would also be happy to provide this information to other members who might be interested.

Movements in the ‘other liabilities’ series are substantial. Other liabilities’ includes deposits of the Commonwealth and some State Governments and governmental authorities, of governments and central banks of other countries and of international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund. It also includes outstanding exchange settlements in favour of other banks, internal reserves, accumulated credit balance of profit and loss account, bills payable, old notes provision, deposits and Reserve Bank staff and sundry other liabilities.

Some of these components, i.e. deposits with the Reserve Bank by Commonwealth and State Governments and government instrumentalities and by overseas institutions and other deposits (excluding banks), are available from the Reserve Bank balance sheet table in the Statistical Bulletin. I have also provided some data for these series to the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I could provide this information as well to other interested members.

Release of Classified Documents (Question No. 1583)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

What is the current rule relating to the time when classified documents are released for public perusal.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

In general, records of the Commonwealth Government are open for public perusal at the end of a period of 30 years beginning on 1 January in the year after that in which the records were created.

The detailed rules are set out in a document entitled Access to Commonwealth Government Records’ available publicly through the various Australian Archives Offices. I have arranged for the honourable member to be provided with a copy of that document and for a copy to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

Ministerial Responsibility (Question No. 1587)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Does he subscribe to the principle set out in the letter of 1 5 July 1975 by his predecessor and read to the Senate by the then President of the Senate.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

On the general principle of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, my views are a matter of public record- see, for example, my Sir Robert Garran Oration of 14 November 1977.

As to the particular issues raised by the question, I would invite the attention of the honourable member to relevant points set out in the statement made by, and the guidelines tabled by, the Minister Assisting me (Mr Viner) in this place on 28 September 1978 in relation to official witnesses appearing before Parliamentary Committees.

Senate Committee of Privileges (Question No. 1588)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Does the Government endorse the majority view of the Senate Committee on Privileges as set out in its Report to the Senate in October 1975.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

I would invite the attention of the honourable member to relevant points set out in the statement made by, and the guidelines tabled by, the Minister Assisting me ( Mr Viner) in this place on 28 September 1978 in relation to official witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees.

Relationship Between Minister and Permanent Head (Question No. 1591)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Does the Government accept the Solicitor-General’s endorsement of Dr H. V. Evatt in relation to the interpretation of section 25 (2) of the Public Service Act

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The responsibility of Permanent Heads under section 25 (2) of the Public Service Act is exercised within the framework of the Constitution which provides that Ministers are appointed to administer Departments of State.

Public Servants: Disclosure of Information for Political Use (Question No. 1593)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

If required by, or authorised by, himself, is a public servant entitled to refuse to provide information which he has reason to suspect is primarily for party political purposes.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

It is the long standing convention that departments provide the information and advice Ministers and the Cabinet require; and Ministers answer to Parliament and are responsible to Parliament for the administration of their departments.

The advice and information departments provide may become associated with political debate. That is perhaps unavoidable. For that reason special conditions apply in the periods immediately prior to elections, limiting requests to departments to the provision of factual information.

It is also the long standing convention that Public Service departments are non-partisan in the party political sense and that Ministers do not require public servants to involve themselves in party political issues.

Public servants who feel that a particular request is contrary to the concept of a non-partisan Public Service are free to raise the matter with their Permanent Head and the Permanent Head with the Minister.

Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd: Prices Justification Tribunal (Question No. 1601)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Will he tell the Parliament whether any Minister or public servant took part in any communications with a representative of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd prior to that company’s announcement to increase or seek an increase in the price of steel over the past 2 years.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

In relation to possible increases in the price of steel, it is normal procedure for officers of the Prices Justification Tribunal to have discussions with the company before any such increases are found to be justified by the Tribunal.

Commissioners and staff of the IAC would also have discussions with the company in relation to the reference on iron and steel.

Officers of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and officers of other Departments, including the Department of Industry and Commerce, would also have communications with the company, as would some Ministers and their staffs. However, such communication relates to a wide range of matters of concern to the Government and the company, and is a perfectly normal and proper aspect of the functions of Ministers and their Departments.

United States Beef Quotas (Question No. 1602)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on IS August:

Will he tell the Parliament the date on which the Government was first informed of the likelihood that the United States of America would increase its purchase of Australian beef.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

On 8 June 1978 President Carter announced an increase of 90,700 tonnes in the 1978 United States voluntary restraint entitlement. This action was taken in order to restrain rising beef prices in the USA. As a result, Australia’s permissible level of exports to the USA for 1 978 was increased by 46,600 tonnes to 347,500 tonnes. The decision was foreshadowed to me on 5 June by the US Government.

The Australian Government had previously raised with the US Administration the matter of a possible relaxation of USA beef import restrictions.

Long Service Leave for General Manager of Australian Broadcasting Commission (Question No. 1605)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

What action has he taken to force the Australian Broadcasting Commission to require its General Manager to observe the rules set by the Public Service Board in relation to accumulated furlough.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The provisions of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 apply to the occupant of the post of General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission on precisely the same basis as they apply to staff of most other Commonwealth statutory authorities and to Austraiian Public Service staff.

Acceptance of Gifts by Public Servants (Question No. 1646)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Are public servants given regular warnings against accepting expensive gifts, lavish or frequent entertainment, payment of hotel or travel costs, valuable services, inside advice as to investments, discounts and allowances in purchasing and informed of the provisions of section 73 of the Crimes Act.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Public Service regulation 7 requires all officers ofthe Public Service to acquaint themselves with the Public Service Act and regulations. Regulation 8 provides that supervisors shall ensure that sufficient copies of the Act and regulations are available in work areas to enable officers under their direction to have ready access to them.

Relevant Public Service regulations include regulation 37, which prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of gifts connected with the duties of an officer, and regulation 34 (a), which provides that an officer shall not use information obtained in the course of his duties for other than official purposes. The honourable member has himself mentioned section 73 of the Crimes Act, which refers to the taking of bribes.

As the honourable member is aware, the Public Service Board is preparing guidelines on official conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants. The original draft is currently being reviewed in the light of comments received on the Board’s discussion paper on the subject. The draft includes paragraphs dealing with the acceptance of gifts and the use of official information other than for official purposes.

The purpose of the guidelines is to draw attention to the law which governs the conduct of Public Servants in these circumstances as well as to provide practical guidance on how potential problems might be approached.

Following completion of necessary consultation and review work the Board proposes to circulate the guidelines widely. All Public Servants will have access to a copy.

Employment of Former Public Servants (Question No. 1648)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Is there a list of public servants who have taken up business appointments upon resignation or retirement, which would place him or her in a position to convey to the appointer useful information that had come to him or her in the course of his or her duties as a public servant.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

No. Public Servants, upon resigning or retiring, are not required to state what form of employment, if any, they intend to take up. While some officers may voluntarily inform departments of their future employment intentions, such information has not been collected on a central basis.

I should, however, invite the honourable member’s attention to sub-section 70 (2) of the Crimes Act 1914 which states: ‘A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him), any fact or document which came to his knowledge, or into his possession, by virtue of his office, and which, at the time when he ceased to be a Commonwealth officer, it was his duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence. ‘

The current Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest will be considering the issue of acceptance by public servants of business appointments on resignation or retirement.

North West Cape and Pine Gap Facilities (Question No. 1754)

Mr Fry:

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

  1. What leasing or other arrangement covers the use of Commonwealth land at (a) the Harold E. Holt naval communication station, North West Cape, Western Australia and (b) the Pine Gap Joint Defence Research Facility, Alice Springs, Northern Territory.
  2. Is the arrangement similar in each case; if not, in what respects do they differ.
  3. What specific conditions cover the building of structures and installation of equipment at these facilities.
  4. Have the leasing conditions been adhered to.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) The arrangements are defined in Article 2 ofthe Agreement in 1963 relating to the establishment of a United States Naval Communication Station in Australia, as amended in 1968 and 1974, and in Article 2 of the Agreement in 1966 relating to the establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility, as amended in 1977. Both agreements are on public record. The essential element ofthe second article in each Agreement is that the land on which the facility was constructed remains vested in the Australian Government, which accords to the US Government all necessary rights of access to, and use and occupation of the land.
  2. The arrangement is similar in each case.
  3. Relevant articles in the United States Naval Communications Station Agreement as amended in March 1974 are articles S, 7, 8, 9 (S), 10, 1 1 and 14. Relevant articles in the JDSRF Agreement as amended in October 1 977 are 4, 6, 8 and 9(5). in respect of both facilities, the co-operating agencies are responsible for detailed implementing arrangements. The co-operating agencies are the Australian and United States Departments of Defence.
  4. See ( 1 ) above. There are no leasing arrangements.

Crude Oil (Question No. 1856)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. Have any studies been commenced to determine whether, and to what extent, increases in crude oil prices have resulted in restraints in the use of crude oil.
  2. If so, what studies have been commenced, and by whom.
  3. What have been the results of these studies to date.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) It is too early to gauge the impact of the accelerated phase-in of world parity pricing of domestic crude oil. The Department of National Development in its half yearly publication Petroleum Statistics sets out details of petroleum consumption. It is anticipated that the impact of the recent price increase will be reflected in these statistics in due course.

The Department in addition carries out a biennial fuel survey which forms the basis for a ten year projection entitled Demand for Primary Fuels Australia’. The next survey to begin in November 1978 will provide the basis for the next ten year projection of primary fuel demand from 1978-79 to 1988-89.

Beer and Spirits Statistics (Question No. 1927)

Mr Giles:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What quantities of Australian (a) beer, (b) brandy, (c) whisky and (d) other spirits were cleared in each of the years 1971-72 to 1977-78 inclusive.
  2. What Commonwealth revenue was received in each of the categories and years referred to in part (1) from (a) excise duty, ( b) sales tax and (c) any other source of revenue.
  3. What quantities of imported (a) beer, (b) brandy, (c) whisky and (d) other spirits were cleared in each of the years 1 97 1 -72 to 1 977-78 inclusive.
  4. What Commonwealth revenue was received in each of the categories and years referred to in part (3) from (a) excise duty, (b) sales tax, (c) customs duty, (d) primage duty and (e) any other source of revenue.
  5. ) For each of the categories referred to in parts ( 1 ) to (4) what are the estimates for 1978-79 for (a) clearances and (b) revenue.
Mr Fife:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-The Australian Statistician has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions ( 1 ) to (4):

()-

(2)-

  1. The Commissioner of Taxation advised that these figures are not available as sales tax is not payable on Australian beer, and sales tax on spirits is not recorded separately.
  2. Nil.

(3)-

(4)-

  1. Nil. (Excise duty is not applicable to Imported goods.)
  2. The Commissioner of Taxation advised that these figures are not available as sales tax payable on imported beer and spirits is not recorded separately.
  1. Nil.
  2. Nil.

Footnote to tables: L = Litres; L. al. = Litres of alcohol.

  1. Some explanation of revenue forecasts is provided in Statement No. 4 attached to the Budget Speech (Estimates of Receipts 1 978-79). In view of the broad nature of these estimates it would not be appropriate to go beyond what is said in the Budget documents.

Trade Practices Act (Question No. 1929)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the decision of the Federal Court in Universal Telecasters (Qld) Ltd v. Guthrie (1978),3TPC221.
  2. If so, will he introduce into the Parliament amendments to section 84 or 85 of the Trade Practices Act as a result of this decision.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The need for amendments to the Trade Practices Act as a result of the Federal Court decision referred to in the question is currently under examination.

Duty Free Admission of Private Motor Vehicles (Question No. 2081)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to problems created for employees of his Department posted overseas, by changes in the arrangements for duty free entry of a private vehicle.
  2. If so, is it a fact that teachers at Butterworth who would have met the requirements for duty free vehicle entry at the time of completion of their tour of duty this year, will now be unable to meet the new criteria which operates in retrospect against persons who in good faith have acted on the basis of import rules then operative.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. The conditions now being applied to determine the eligibility of private motor vehicles for duty free admission have been in existence since 1967.

Tyres: Firestone Australia Pty Ltd (Question No. 2087)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports in the Financial Review of 8 August 1978 that the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company is presently facing investigation in the United States of America concerning the alleged unsafety of its SOO Series Radial tyres.
  2. If so, has his Department made any investigations to ascertain whether any of this type of tyre has ever been sold in Australia.
  3. Has his Department had any official contact with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the body in the United States of America investigating the Firestone Company.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Officers of my Department has investigated the matter, including the contacting of Firestone Australia Pty Ltd, Auburn, NSW. From that investigation, it appears that this type of tyre has never been manufactured in, or commercially imported into, Australia. Firestone Australia Pty Ltd has informed my Department that it is not aware of any complaint regarding the safety of any Firestone tyres currently produced or supplied in Australia.
  3. No. However officers of my Department receive information from many sources on product investigations in the United States concerning safety, including investigations carried out by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Department of Transport: Consultation with the States (Question No. 2096)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Refer to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2090 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 17 October 1978, page 1972.)

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs: Consultation with the States (Question No. 21 13)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, 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 Fife:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to question number 2090, Hansard of 17 October 1978, page 1972.

Prime Minister’s Lodge (Question No. 2141)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. Further to his answer to question No. 1395 (Hansard, 1 2 September 1978, page 894) in respect of the firms listed in part 1 (b), (a) what specific materials and goods were supplied by each of the firms listed, (b) what was the cost of each item and (c) what is the present location of each item.
  2. Were tenders called for the supply of each ofthe items purchased; if not, why not.
  3. If tenders were not called what was the manner of purchase.
  4. Under which Budget item is shown the expenditure for the items purchased.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) All the items purchased are located at the Prime Minister’s Lodge. In respect of the detail of these and other running costs for official residences, I refer the honourable member to the policy determined by the previous Government (Hansard, 4 November 1975, page 2776).
  2. and (3) Tenders were not called because the cost for individual items or quantities of the same item did not exceed the $5,000 limit above which the Finance Regulations require tenders to be called. Purchases were made from suppliers offering suitable goods at the time of purchase. This is the same system that has applied to purchases for official establishments under successive Governments. Accounts for official establishments expenditure are audited by the Auditor-General.
  3. Appropriation Item 505/2/08-Official Establishments, Furniture and Fittings.

Air Fares (Question No. 2165)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does his reply to question No. 1661 (Hansard, 1 4 September 1978, page 109S) mean that he treats the confidential commercial nature of the calculations upon which the Government based its decision to permit commercial airlines to impose a further fare increase upon air travellers as being above the right of the people’s Parliament to test and debate the basis of the Government’s decision.
  2. If he persists in his refusal to give the Parliament the facts how can it carry out its function of custodian of public interest.
  3. What have the commercial airlines to hide that causes the Government to protect them from the glare of public analysis and debate.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Successive Governments have adopted the view that commercial cost information supporting tariff increases should be treated as confidential. The annual financial accounts of TAA and Ansett are tabled in the Parliament.
  2. Nothing. However like any other business it is not practice to make their commercial cost information available.

Mineral Deposits, Roxby Downs (Question No. 2172)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 21 September 1978:

What is the latest information available to the Government regarding the mineral deposits at Roxby Downs, South Australia, and their potential exploitation.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

The following information has been obtained from annual reports of the Western Mining Corporation Ltd and from the South Australian Mines Department publication Mining Industry Quarterly.

Intersections of copper mineralisation at the Olympic Dam prospect, about 30 km north of Roxby Downs Station in South Australia were first reported by Western Mining Corporation Ltd in the Corporation’s 1973-76 Annual Report.

The discovery hole, RDI, was sited in July 1973 and, to the end of September 1978, nineteen diamond drill holes had been completed. Of these, thirteen holes intersected copper and uranium mineralisation from 8 to 248 m thick with grades generally between 1.0 and 2.4 per cent Cu and 0.5 to 1.0 lb U.0 per tonne. The mineralisation was encountered at about 350 m below the surface. The holes are widely spaced over an area 1500 m by 400 m but the rock types and the nature of the mineralisation are sufficiently similar to suggest continuity. Further drilling is required to define fully the extent of mineralisation.

Department of Industry and Commerce: Computers (Question No. 2206)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. How many computers are (a) owned, (b) operated, (c) in the process of being purchased or (d) rented by bis Department, and statutory authorities and business undertaking under his control.
  2. What is the cost of purchase or rental of each computer.
  3. 3 ) For what purposes is each computer used.
  4. What is the nature of the data stored by each computer.
  5. What interconnections exist or will exist between any of these computers.
  6. Who has access to each computer.
  7. What savings in staff numbers have been achieved or are anticipated as a result of the installation or operation of each computer.
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (7) No computers are owned, operated, in the process of being purchased, rented, by my Department or the Australian Tourist Commission. The Department of Industry and Commerce is, however, party to arrangements providing for access to computers owned and operated by other Commonwealth authorities.

These access arrangements have not resulted in staff reductions in the Department nor are any anticipated. Rather, the arrangements are seen to provide a complementary support service to officers engaged in research, survey and administrative tasks, all of which include a high volume of routine data processing.

Department of Industry and Commerce: Computers (Question No. 2235)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) In respect of each computer owned or operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control, what information stored therein can be sold, hired, lent, or given to any person or organisation other than properly authorised employees of his Department, authority or business.
  2. Under what circumstances can this information be (a) sold, (b) hired, (c) lent or (d) given.
  3. On what occasions, and to whom, has any information been sold, hired, lent or given in the past.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Neither my Department nor the Australian Tourist Commission owns a computer. The Department of Industry and Commerce is, however, party to arrangements providing for access to computers owned by other Commonwealth authorities. These arrangements facilitate data processing in relation to industry surveys, econometric and some administrative applications.

There are no arrangements whereby data stored on computers, on behalf of the Department of Industry and Commerce, is sold, hired, lent, or made available to other than authorised officers ofthe Department

Department of the Capital Territory: Computers (Question No. 2260)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) In respect of each computer owned or operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control, what information stored therein can be sold, hired, lent or given to any person or organisation other than properly authorised employees of his Department, authority or business.
  2. Under what circumstances can this information be (a) sold, (b) hired, (c) lent or (d) given.
  3. On what occasions, and to whom, has any information been sold, hired, lent or given in the past.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Department as under

Department of the Capital Territory; (a) NCR 8200-Nil; (b) ICL 2903-Information concerning the current account status of Housing Mortgages and Loans.

Australian Capital Territory Police; Nil.

Commonwealth Brickworks (Canberra) Limited; Nil.

National Capital Development Commission; (a) ICL System 10- Financial information is given, when needed, to the Department ofthe Capital Territory and the Department of Construction.

  1. PDP U/20-Information stored on the CSIRO system, other than confidential information, when it is of the following nature:

    1. Information collected as a joint exercise with other organisations (such as traffic accident information) may be made available to those organisations or people authorised by the authorities involved in the joint exercise.
    2. Basic planning information gathered from surveys carried out on behalf of or by the NCDC can be provided to other organisations and is often given to consultants as the basis for further work.

Australian Capital Territory Totalizator Agency Board; Nil.

ACT Electricity Authority; Names and addresses of consumers.

  1. Department of the Capital Territory; (a) NCR 8200-Nil; ( b) ICL 2903-Given at the request ofthe client.

Australian Capital Territory Police; Nil.

Commonwealth Brickworks (Canberra) Limited; Nil.

National Capital Development Commission; Information of a basic planning nature is provided to agents of the Commission as a basis for further planning work. It is provided only when authorised by the NCDC Project Officer and is treated on the same basis as written information, Le. it shall not be used for any purpose other than that nominated in the brief and shall not be communicated to any other organisation without written permission from NCDC.

Australian Capital Territory Totalizator Agency Board; Nil.

ACT Electricity Authority; Names and addresses of consumers given to the ACT Police upon request.

  1. Department of the Capital Territory; (a) NCR 8200-Nil; (b) ICL 2903-Whenever requested by the client the information is given to him or his approved agent.

Australian Capital Territory Police; Nil.

Commonwealth Brickworks (Canberra) Limited; Nil.

National Capital Development Commission; Information collected as a joint exercise with other organisations has been made available to those organisations. Information of a basic planning nature has been provided on many occasions to external consultants who were working as agents of the Commission on a particular planning task. Only the relevant information necessary for that particular task was provided.

Australian Capital Territory Totalizator Agency Board; Nil.

ACT Electricity Authority; Names and addresses of consumers given to the ACT Police upon request. I have asked that this practice be discontinued.

Herbicides and Pesticides (Question No. 2269)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the claim made on the program Four Comers on 6 May 1978, that at least 10 chemical herbicides and pesticides which are banned or severely restricted in the United States of America are exported to this country and are freely available here.
  2. If so, has he had this claim investigated.
  3. 3 ) What were the findings of any investigation.
  4. Has his attention also been drawn to the fact that Dr E. J. Fitzsimons, the person nominated by his Department to participate in this Four Corners program and an officer with appropriate detailed technical knowledge about the possible long-term effects of pesticides on health, was apparently unaware of which pesticides were restricted in the United States of America but are freely available in Australia.
  5. Does he have confidence in the person nominated as the departmental representative for this program.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. The findings were that the substances aldrin, chlordane, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D which were quoted as examples of the 10 allegedly banned or severely restricted products in the U.S.A. are not prohibited for use in that country but are subjected to specified conditions for usage. Assessments and recommendations are made in the United States appropriate to local conditions and requirements. Similarly relevant assessments are made here in Australia to ensure safe usage as related to Australian needs.
  3. Yes. However, I do not believe anybody could be expected, without prior notice, or access to reference sources, to answer questions involving detailed regulatory provisions concerning all Australian States and in various overseas countries. The fact that the vague and unspecified questions were not answered immediately with finite and minute detail in no way reflects on the capacity and competence of the officer involved.
  4. Yes.

Army Hospital Unit, Ingleburn (Question No. 2335)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Do any plans exist for modernisation of the Army hospital unit at Ingleburn, NSW.
  2. 2 ) Is it a fact that existing structures are unsuitable for the most efficient use of modern equipment.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There are no current plans for the extensive modernisation of 2 Military Hospital at Ingleburn.
  2. The operating theatre suite is modern and other buildings are generally adequate. The x-ray department is housed in temporary accommodation which necessitates some limitations on the use of the x-ray and fluoroscopy equipment. Priority will be given to extending the efficiency of the x-ray department through programmed repairs and maintenance at the hospital.

Army Survey Unit: Printers (Question No. 2338)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 September, 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government accepted the report of the Regular Services Salary Review Board.
  2. If so, does this mean that printers employed by the Army Survey Unit will have their pay reduced.
  3. Are most of these affected by the reduction located at Bendigo, Victoria.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) If the question is intended to refer to the report by Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay on Placement of Other Rank Employment Categories, the answer is yes.
  2. The Committee of Reference is an independent advisory body to the Minister for Defence. Its Chairman is a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and its two members are a Commissioner of that Commission and a senior retired Service officer respectively.

On 12 July 1976 1 referred to the Committee of Reference the placement of all other rank employment categories at the proper level within the existing pay structure.

Its report on this matter was presented to me on 9 March 1978. 1 have accepted it. Several employment categories will be increased in pay level while others will be reduced in pay level, including Army Printer categories. But the latter will have their current rates of pay preserved by non-reduction provisions. In discharging the task referred to it, the Committee of Reference visited a large number fo Service establishments, including the Army Survey Regiment Bendigo, where Servicemen were interviewed on the job.

Given the membership of the Committee and its knowledge of Services’ pay matters, I am satisfied that the recommendations of the Committee of Reference are soundly based.

  1. Yes.

Crude Oil (Question No. 2388)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 28 September 1978:

  1. On what basis has the Government determined the official import parity price for crude oil.
  2. Does the import parity price reflect transport costs from the Middle East; if so, how are these costs determined.
  3. What was the import parity price in August 1977 and what changes have occurred in this price since then.
  4. Will the import parity price in 1979 be determined on the same basis as that previously used; if not, how will the calculation vary.
  5. If there is an increase in import parity price in 1979, will the total increase in domestic crude oil prices pass to the Government as additional excise levy, or will part, or all, of it go to the producers.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Refer to my Press Statement ‘Calculation of the Import Parity Price of Indigenous Crude Oil’ dated 4 July 1978.
  2. Refer to House of Representatives Hansard of 16 August 1977 for Ministerial Statement on Crude Oil Policy, pages 244 to 247 and press statements ‘ Determination of Import Parity Prices for Indigenous Crude Oil Production’ dated 20 January 1978 and 1 7 July 1 978.
  3. See answer to Part 1 above.
  4. Increases in the price of parity crude oil would be received by the producers while price increases on non parity crude result in increased excise collections. Refer to House of Representatives Hansard of IS August 1978, page 286 (Excise Amendment Bill 1978).

Defence Force Ombudsman (Question No. 2390)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 September 1 978:

  1. How long has the position of Defence Force Ombudsman been vacant.
  2. Does the Government intend to make an appointment to this position in the near future.
  3. Is the low level of usage of this office a matter of concern.
  4. Are servicemen concerned at possible repercussions from making complaints outside their particular service administrative and disciplinary codes.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Since 3 1 December 1 976 when Mr D. O. Hay, the Defence Force Ombudsman Designate, was appointed Secretary, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Office of the Defence Force Ombudsman has functioned under the Executive Director of the Office.
  2. The appointment of a Defence Force Ombudsman is being considered by my Department. Further consideration will be given to the introduction of a Bill into the House when the effects of changes to the Services redress of grievance systems have been fully assessed.
  3. On the contrary it is encouraging to see that the number of complaints by Service personnel is low.
  4. I am not aware of any concern. Service personnel are aware that they must follow the procedures contained in Service administration and disciplinary codes. Although a Bill providing for the appointment of a Defence Force Ombudsman lapsed on the change of Government in December 1 975, Service personnel are aware that subject to compliance with the provisions of that draft legislation they may refer complaints to the Defence Force Ombudsman ‘s Office staff for additional investigation.

Community Health Centres: Optometrists (Question No. 2402)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Are there any optometrists employed on (a) salaried, (b) sessional and (c) fee for service bases in Community Health Centres in (i) the Australian Capital Territory and (ii) the States.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. There are no optometrists employed in Community Health Centres in the ACT on any basis.
  2. The detailed administration of general community health projects conducted within States and approved for funding under the Community Health Program, is a matter for the States. The relevant State health authorities have advised that the following numbers of optometrists are employed in approved projects, on the bases shown:

NSW and Queensland: Nil.

Victoria: Optometrists operate at four centres on a feeforservice basis.

SA: Eight visiting optometrists operate at four centres on a fee-for-service basis.

WA: One optometrist visits one centre two days per month, and charges only for the cost of spectacles.

Tasmania: One visiting optometrist operates at one centre for two hours per week on a fee-for-service basis.

Visit to Australia by HRH Princess Alexandra and the Honourable Angus Ogilvy (Question No. 2410)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) On what day did Princess Alexandra and Mr Agnus Ogilvy (a) arrive in Australia and (b) depart.
  2. What was the total cost of their visit to Australia.
  3. 3 ) What were the specific reasons for their visit.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) 20 September 1978; (b) 3 October.
  2. A final cost figure is not available as all accounts have not yet been received. In Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1 978-79, an amount of $50,000 was provided for this visit.
  3. At the invitation of the Commonwealth Government in respect of various requests from State and Territory Governments for members of the Royal Family to attend significant functions here.

Ethnic Schools: Funding (Question No. 2418)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. Does the Government have fixed arrangements or guidelines for the funding of ethnic schools; if so, what are they.
  2. Does the Government support the establishment of a Federation of Ethnic Schools.
  3. If so, has any progress been made in establishing such a body.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The Commonwealth Government has no fixed arrangements or guidelines for the funding of such schools, assuming that the ethnic schools referred to are those parttime schools and classes organised out of normal school hours which are established by ethnic communities to allow the teaching of the traditional language and culture of the community. (There are a small number of full-time schools supported by particular ethnic communities which follow the normal curriculum and which the Government recognises, for funding and other purposes, as non-government schools).
  2. and (3) I understand that Federations of Ethnic Schools have been established in New South Wales and South Australia, and that discussions on the possibility of forming similar Federations are being discussed in some other States as well. I am not aware of any intention to establish such a body at the Federal level.

Department of Transport: Internal Audit Reports (Question No. 2431)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement on page 267 of the 1978 report of the Auditor-General that the Auditor-General’s office had highlighted certain deficiencies in this Department’s internal audit reports but little action had been taken to effect remedies and improve procedures and that advice of remedial action proposed was requested from the Department but had not been received at the date of preparation of the Auditor-General ‘s report.
  2. If so, has his Department now advised the AuditorGeneral’s office of the proposed remedial action and what was the specific nature of the advice conveyed; if not, what is the reason.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. The Auditor-General’s office has been advised of the remedial action undertaken since the time of their investigation:

    1. Interim reply was forwarded to Auditor-General’s office on 12 July 1978 indicating that the situation had been under investigation since mid April 1978, that remedial action was in course, and that a final reply would be forthcoming as soon as the required detailed information had been compiled.
    1. A detailed reply has now been forwarded to the Auditor-General’s Office, Canberra, indicating that appropriate remedial action has been taken on every matter raised in the report.

Action taken included: transfer of the Central Office, Canberra, accounting section to the Finance Branch, where officers with appropriate expertise have been overseeing its operation. all anomalies raised by both Internal and Commonwealth auditors have been rectified. the advice included the internal audit procedures being reported as satisfactory for the Canberra office.

Defence: Tactical Fighter Force Program (Question No. 2432)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. 1 ) Are all aircraft named in his most recent statement on the Tactical Fighter Force Program still under active consideration.
  2. ) If not, which aircraft have been dropped.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) See my statement to the House on 24 October 1978.

Defence: Tactical Fighter Force Program (Question No. 2433)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Government taken a decision to defer further consideration of the choice of an aircraft under the Tactical Fighter Force Program.
  2. If so, what is the nature and likely duration of the delay.
  3. What is the timetable now for completion of the various stages of the T.F.F. Program.
Mr Killen:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) See my statement to the House on 24 October 1978.

Royal Australian Air Force: Mirage Aircraft (Question No. 2436)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. Has the upgrading of the Mirage III aircraft announced by him been dropped.
  2. Did he indicate that with the upgrading the Mirage would stay in service until 1 985.
  3. Has he or his Department now stated that the Mirage without the upgrade program will remain in service until 1989.
  4. Is 1989 beyond the aircraft’s estimated frame life.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. No- see my statement to the House on 24 October 1978.
  2. No-beyond 1985 to the late 1980s.
  3. No.
  4. No- on the basis of presently available estimates.

Bendigo Ordnance Factory (Question No. 2441)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are currently employed at the Bendigo Ordnance Factory.
  2. What is the level of staff ceilings to be applied to the factory.
  3. How many persons were employed at the factory during (a) 1977,(b) 1976 and (c) 1975.
Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The total number of people employed at the Ordnance Factory Bendigo at 20 September 1978 was 597.
  2. The level of staff ceilings applicable to the Ordnance Factory Bendigo, to be effective at 30 June 1 979, is 588.
  3. Persons employed at the factory as at 30 June of each year totalled-(a) 1977-606; (b) 1976-614; and (c) 1975-654.

Tax Avoidance (Question No. 2450)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

With reference to his answer to question No. 1669 (Hansard, 10 October 1978, page 1667), what is the nature of the Cabinet submissions and so-called confidential reports referred to in his reply which are such that the Parliament cannot be trusted to be informed of their contents.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I have nothing to add to my reply to Question No. 1 669.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19781114_reps_31_hor112/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant